













































o. *•,-.* 

? Y ' C> 

«* c,^ * 

\ ^ V 

* <$y ^ 0 i 

% 









• .1 ^ 


* v* J ^MPf ° .* V *V 

* «? <> * \yFt\frfc * 4> <& . 

■> ..**' A <^ '<>’•"» 

o *&([[%%> * <P, A 


40 

'*«•«•...•** <V *■•<’* •*P .. % *"* -^ , 

x „* * «„ o .0 s‘”% ^ V . * 1 

~ -a ^ ^r^kr?ffe * v a v 

•- » * 


' ° * * * A^ ' • * * (S 

,y?% o o ^ 

' *b v* ; 

r\ * 




« <_> r 

5v° -n. 





'Kp <j ^ ' 

v* CT 

«5 % 

y o- \w*v .c 

0*\...,.% 

.r^^.% *^* ''Isis's ■ y * 

° ° r vv 

« a v *V *Wf; y> Sv V 

r •* V ^ 'A 

'* A *o.>* G v 

A <p 0 V o 0 " 

:> <r Sae/r77^' 0 •. 

^ W r^' 

.«CW* 4 0 


VV 

cfi •* ^ 

* <*? °vO- • m/; 

, - ,<y & v* 

'v- '• • » * A° °4. ' 

„ tp ,o* .‘! 4 ”% ° 0 
**- *-o* : 


«5 ^ 



/ A "o, '* r W > *s O o 

- V * 1 * °* o. J 1 

■• ^ ♦>va % a y * 

'jj'. - 


'y A 

o V 


*>° ^ * 

■) "V a? o -. 

% x> V v CV - 

^ »>Vr ^ ^ 



v° ' f ^ V <t '~z!ls'//1V£¥ & ~ •» < y. j\ '^M.\\\ s Cs a * 

> o_ >- o 

* A 0 <$> * o w 0 0 < 

A 


^ ,v 

. ^ ^/,/n-Exxx^ 

• ,$'% : ^i^- a v- v °WWW; <& 'V. 

^.»*' a g* ^a <*, *'••** y 

o " O + <Q> . »■ ' 8 ^ y. Q v c ° ” ° + 

C » O ■» Vcr G * 

\ 0 i o 


y G 

^ o* : 




<- * v^WXxsz? ' w 

rb- •* * <L* * 

•■ y «>.*“■ - ° y 

v V A ;fyi|. C S vt. -• ° aVA 

J.V ^ o^vJ&AF* V *§31SS/* A V ^ 

_V- X • v * A ci* ^ 

A J '° ♦ A a G v *b *<Tis * A 

J » *• ' 8 - » (\> , 0 * <3 ^ - G . t ' i 

' —* -^_ G u *W! 8 ^ 

Jy *• 


r \fr ^ 

A -W 



. A o^ l * A 7*. * ^ 

’*./ a^-’ y 

A" 5 ^ 



r a^ 

° A ♦ 

^ 9 S « 

'••»• .G v X9, "■'V;*' 1 a •«► '«.»* <o^ 

. ,0T ,.-•, -*0 4> ..... cr 

- c • ■^ y 4>^:. %. - c / 




%, G v , 












. & . v ' a ^ 

^ ^ ; 

0 ° tsA^ 5 ^* ^ 

. S • • 


C\ <9 s 

tf> /5T *V 
= ■ >>. ^ . % 

mg. > v *v - 1 

v -“' ^ - 
a * «■ *» 

_ »A *• 

A * 

A *> 
o V 

k 0 



Av\ * 

- s, ' &J. * 

\. ** S) ^ * <aj 

V V v ****- c\ A? v *«AL'«, > V 

* A- OA ♦ rCC\ 1,/h,° A> A * ®||^ « ~ 

: *&Mw2u ^ v * ^iii^ - 

: ^|^ 0 o' 

^SBr* <V <P ° 

o° c 

y v ^<vvArF%*<* \ ^ v jt&ni//sT2^ ~ / a - ' <i 

o 


*> V * 

^ * r 

* A> <A * rK 

: *a v • A 


*a 

* ^ ^ ^wl- J> \ \ 

.0 t* '••** A t*. * 

a v , <• ' « "O*. (V ,o*o_ v- 

A t f* U ^ c 

a ' + £?ri[//??-, „ " 

v>> A ^ tf ’{\!///^> ■* 

o V 


t • 


H O 

k «? ><* 

* <A o -0 

> V -;•“- O A , 

• ^ ** 4 ¥a" A / * J 
5 Wf; , : Btiw ° ^ Vy V ° 

^ -o,** 0^ V *o!- s * A ' 

V ,0^ A% 

- ^ aAMa - ^ A 

♦ 

«n 



v y ^ ^ 

A , ^ ^ ■<$ 

'~?/r?7^, -r r 

^ :^df/Z^> + 

? V * T ^ 

% ^ V % * ’ • o^ c\ AT ,*'•% V 

fc _Cy> ^ 



W • C? 

\K * V ' J ^>- 
■* ,-o. v Ai 



%, * *" ’ • ’ f°° V '- »^»’* A A * •^ *’ a 0 ' 

. to ^ sjtffaf. •?. *>W/k" C.'V *‘* 



^ °A 



t ^ 


^ &nF/s 

k At ////y> 

^ 


?.* / '? 

* <?A 


O 

o 



•<• V 


to ‘ 

1 B <>> 

♦ 

t y> 

^ ^ 'P 

♦ 

•* //// 


















































PETITION, 

Filed 19th October, 1850 



To the Honorable the Judges of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the County of 

Philadelphia, the Petition of the Subscribers, Citizens and Qualified Electors 

of the said County, 

Respectfully showeth— 

That they are qualified electors of the county of Philadelphia, and voted at the 
general election on the second Tuesday of October, A. D. 1850, for the office of Dis¬ 
trict Attorney. 

That they complain of the false return and undue election of Horn R. Kneass, Esq., 
as District Attorney, and contest his right to the said office of District Attorney for 
the City and County of Philadelphia. 

And they specify, craving leave to have the benefit of any other objections that may 
appear, the following grounds of contest and objection: 

First. —That Horn R. Kneass did not at the general election on the second Tuesday 
of October, A. D. 1850, receive a majority of the votes of the qualified electors of 
the said city and county, but that a'majority of said votes were duly given to William 
B. Reed. 

Second .— -That the general return of the return judges of said election is a false 
return in this, that William B. Reed received two hundred and sixty-three (263) votes 
in the Township of West Philadelphia, instead of two hundred and thirteen (213) as 
returned by said judges, making a difference of fifty (50) votes, and Horn R. Kneass 
received in the fifth ward, Kensington, two hundred and thirty-three (233) votes, in¬ 
stead of two hundred and thirty-eight (238) as returned by said judges, making a 
further difference of five (5) votes; and that in other Wards and Districts of said 
County, as will appear when the tickets in the boxes shall be counted, a number ex¬ 
ceeding one hundred votes were cast for William B. Reed, which were counted and 
returned for Horn R. Kneass. 

Third. —That in the Second Ward, Moyatnensing, the officers of the election falsely 
returned a large number of votes, viz : two hundred and forty-three (243) and up¬ 
wards, as having been cast, whereas in fact no such votes were cast, but the names 
on the list of voters and the numbers on the tally papers were wrongfully and fraudu¬ 
lently added. A portion of the names so fraudulently added and inserted as having 
voted will appear on schedule A, hereunto appended, and to be taken as a part of this 
complaint. 

Fourth. —That in the Second Ward, Moyamensing, one hundred and fifty-three 
(153) votes and upwards were deposited for William B. Reed as District Attorney, 
whereas the officers of the election have fraudulently returned but ninety-four (94) 
votes, the remainder being either fraudulently withdrawn from the ballot box or 
counted and returned as having been given for Horn R. Kneass. 

Fifth —That the lists of voters and tally papers of the Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
are not genuine papers, but are simulated and altered, and do not represent either the 
names or numbers of the persons who voted. 

Sixth .—That the said officers of the Second Ward, Moyamensing, received, or ac¬ 
cording to the lists of the voters, profess to have received the votes of persons two 
hundred and forty (240) and upwards in number, none of whom were qualified electors 
in the said ward. The names of such persons, so far as they are known to your peti¬ 
tioners, are set forth in schedule A, to be taken as part of this complaint. 

Seventh .—That the said officers of the election in the Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
or some one of them after the tickets on which were written or printed the name of 
William B. Reed were prepared for counting, withdrew or destroyed the same or a 
large number, at least one hundred (100) thereof, and substituted therefor certain other 
tickets on which were written or printed the name of Horn R. Kneass. 

Eighth.- -That after the poll was closed in the said Second Ward, Moyamensing, the 
officers of the said election, the Judge, Inspectors and Clerks removed the boxes, 
tickets* blank tally papers, &c., from the room where the said election was held into 


A 

o ^ 



• I J . • 

11 

an upper and different room from the one in which sai^l election was held, and kept 
the same there without counting said tickets till the next day. 

Ninth. —That the tickets cast or which purport to have been cast at such election 
in the said Second Ward, Moyamensing, were not counted in the room where said 
election was held, but in another and different room, having been so removed in order 
that the frauds above charged might be the more easily perpetrated. 

Tenth. —That the judge of the said election in the said Second Ward, being unable 
to read or write, did not count or assist in counting the separate tickets so as afore¬ 
said cast, but did count such bundles as had been prepared for counting by the other 
officers, without examining the same, and from his count thus made, the numbers were 
entered on the tally papers. 

Eleventh. —That after the real number of votes cast in said ward were entered on 
the tally papers, the said tally papers were erased and altered so as to represent a 
different number of votes as having been cast for William B. Reed and Horn R. 
Kneass, respectively, whereby William B. Reed was defrauded in said return of a 
large number, to wit, one hundred (100) votes, and upwards. 

Twelfth. —That in order to carry into effect said frauds, the officers of the election 
in the said Second Ward, Moyamensing, retained in their possession the boxes, tally 
papers, list of voters, until Thursday, October tenth, at three, A. M., fraudulently 
neglecting to deposit them with the nearest magistrate, within one day after the elec¬ 
tion w r as finished, as required by the seventy-fourth section of the Act of Assembly, 
passed July 2d, 1839. 

Thirteenth. —That no copies of the oaths or affirmations of the Judge, Inspectors 
and Clerks of the election in the said Second Ward, Moyamensing, have ever been 
returned or filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, as required 
by law, and as is verily believed and so charged, no such oaths or affirmations were 
ever taken by said officers. 

Fotirteenth. —That in the First Ward, Moyamensing, the said election was held by 
persons not authorized or competent by law to act, viz : a certain Joseph Enue, Jr., 
acting, under a special appointment as Inspector, he being at the time a Guardian of 
the Poor, elected and appointed by the Commissioners of the said Township of Moya¬ 
mensing. 

Fifteenth .—That in the said First Ward, Moyamensing, the officers of the same 
have fraudulently returned a large number, to wit: two hundred and twenty two (222) 
and upwards of names of persons as having voted, whereas in fact no such persons 
voted, but the names on the lists of voters, and the number on the tally papers were 
wrongfully and fraudulently added. The said names and numbers are set forth in 
schedule B, hereunto appended. 

Sixteenth. —That in the said First Ward, Moyamensing, a large number, to wit: 
two hundred and twenty-two (222) names are inserted on the lists of voters as of per¬ 
sons who voted, which names are not to be found on the lists of taxables or the addi¬ 
tional assessment, were not inserted on the alphabetical list of taxables, and which 
are believed and charged to have been improperly and fraudulently entered on said 
lists of voters, no such persons having voted. The said names appearing on schedule 
B, aforesaid. 

Seventeenth. —That in the said First Ward, Moyamensing, one hundred and ten (110) 
votes were deposited for William B. Reed as District Attorney, whereas the said offi¬ 
cers have fraudulently returned but ninety-eight (98) votes, the remainder being either 
fraudulently withdrawn from the ballot box or counted and returned as having been 
given to Horn R. Kneass. 

Eighteenth. —That the lists of voters and tally papers of the First Ward, Moya¬ 
mensing, filed and returned, are not genuine papers, but are simulated and altered, and 
do not represent either the names or numbers of persons who voted. 

Nineteenth. —That the said officers of the First Ward, Moyamensing, received or 
according to the lists of voters, profess to have received the votes of two hundred and 
twenty-two (222) persons, whose names are set forth in schedule B, hereunto annexed 
who were not qualified electors in said ward. 

Twentieth. —That the said officers of the First Ward, Moyamensing, negligently 
omitted to deposit in the ballot boxes, as will appear by an examination thereof the 
alphabetical list of taxables, as required by law. 

; Twenty-fir st .—That in neither the First nor Second Wards, Moyamensing was 

there a fair count or tally of the votes actually cast for County Officers, including the 


Ill 


4 


District Attorney, as will appear, and so your contestants believe and charge, on an 
examination of said ballot boxes and tickets. 

Twenty-second .—That the elections and all the proceedings thereat, held in the 
First and Second Wards, Moyamensing, are absolutely null and void, having been held 
and conducted at other places than those authorized by law. 

Twenty-third .—That the Judges, Inspectors and Clerks in the Eastern and Western 
precincts of Penn District, have made respectively a false return of the number of 
votes cast for Horn R. Kneass and William B. Reed, and that instead of twenty-six 
(26) votes being cast for William B. Reed in the Eastern precinct, and thirty-eight 
(38) in the Western precinct, there wgre cast for the said William B. Reed in the 
Eastern precinct one hundred (100) votes and upwards, and in the Western precinct 
ninety (90) votes and upwards, the number of votes beyond twenty-six (26) in one 
precinct and thirty-eight (38) in the other, being either destroyed or counted as having 
been cast for Horn R. Kneass. 

Twenty -fourth. —That the returns, tally papers and lists of voters returned in said 
District of Penn, are not genuine papers, but are simulated and altered, and do not 
represent either the number of votes actually given for William B. Reed and Horn R. 
Kneass, or the names of such voters. 

Twenty-fifth .—That in the other wards and election districts of the whole city and 
county of Philadelphia, there was not a true return of the number of votes cast re¬ 
spectively for Horn R. Kneass and William B. Reed, and that on a re-count of the 
tickets contained in the ballot boxes, which your petitioners pray may be ordered, it 
will appear that a majority of said votes were cast for William B. Reed, and not for 
Horn R. Kneass. 

Twenty-sixth .—That the ballots for District Attorney have been incorrectly counted 
in the different Districts, incorporated and otherwise, of the city and county of Phila¬ 
delphia, and that four hundred (400) and upwards have been counted for Horn R. 
Kneass and included in the returns made, which were not given for him but for Wil¬ 
liam B. Reed. 

Wherefore your petitioners show, that by the means aforesaid, William B. Reed 
has been duly elected District Attorney of the city and county of Philadelphia, having 
more votes than were given for Horn R. Kneass, the returned candidate, or for any 
other person, and that therefore the election was undue, and the return false, in de¬ 
claring and returning the said Horn R. Kneass as duly elected. 

Your petitioners therefore pray, that your Honors will appoint a suitable time for 
hearing this complaint, make such orders as may be necessary to exhibit the aforesaid 
undue election and false return, and take such other action In the premises as you may 
deem best, specially praying that your Honors will direct the boxes containing the 
tickets cast at the said election for the said office of District Attorney, be forthwith 
collected and brought into your Honors’ Court, or placed in such other custody as your 
Honors may direct. 

And they will ever pray, &c. 


Sami. E. Wallington, 
Dauphin M. Mathieu, 
John McCandles, 
John Lloyd, 

F. A. Godwin, 
William Glading, 
Fred’k. W. Christian 
John Devereux, 
Thomas Smith, 

Jas. G. Smith, 

E. P. Burton, 


Robert Burton, 
Jas. Carstairs, 

H. L. Stewart, 
David Carstairs, 
James S. Oellers, 
Jacob B. Soleley, 
Jos. S. Randall, 
James Barratt, 
James S. Pringle, 
William B. Hart, 
G. Scull, 


Wm. Smite, 

Peter Glasgow, 
Beauchamp Murray, 
Ralph Robson, 

Robert Murray, 
Matthew W. Perkins, 
Geo. E. Murray, 
William Duffy, 

John Jarden, 

Thomas Robson, 

John Robson. 


Samuel E. Wallington and Dauphin M. Mathieu, two of the above petitioners, being 
duly sworn, say that they are qualified electors of the county of Philadelphia, and that 
the facts stated in the foregoing petition are true to the best of their knowledge and 
L lief SAMUEL E. WALLINGTON, 

DAUPHIN M. MATHIEU. 


Sworn and subscribed before me, October 18th, 1850, 


JOEL COOK, Alderman . 


907 

910 

915 

917 

920 

930 

931 

936 

913 

938 

944 

948 

950 

951 

952 

954 

961 

962 

963 

964 

970 

971 

972 

973 

974 

977 

980 

981 

984 

985 

986 

989 

993 

994 

1002 

1006 

1007 

1009 

1010 

1014 

1015 

1016 

1017 

1018 

1019 

1020 

1021 

1022 

1023 

1024 

1025 

1026 

1027 

1028 

1029 

1030 

1031 

1032 

1033 

1035 

1036 

1035 

1036 


IV 


Alexander Gillis, 

1037 

[ A j 

Robert Steel, 

1102 

R. G. Adams, 

Henry Kane, 

1038 

Philip Walter, 

1103 

John Conely, 

John M. Brien, 

1039 

John Kickman, 

1104 

Jacob Gown, 

Michael McCloskey, 
James McCrainer, 

1040 

Robeit Pierce, 

1105 

C. A. Masson, 

1041 

John Pean, 

1106 

Peter Bool, 

John McCulic, 

1042 

Samuel Williams, 

1107 

Geo. Allison, 

Washington Arnold, 

1043 

James Grieves, 

1108 

John Fetters, 

Wrn. Farell, 

1014 

James Grant, 

13 09 

Wm. Morgan, 

Roger McCloskey, 

1045 

Wm. Kee, 

John McHenry, 

1110 

Samuel Peirson, 

Wrn. Creig, 

1046 

3111 

Henry Shorn, 

Calather McCarthy, 

1047 

Samuel Merric, 

1112 

Wm. B. Potter, 

John Price, 

1048 

John Niple, 

1113 

John Payne, 

Redmon Parrable, 

1049 

Charles Light, 

1114 

Hiram Young, 

Thomas Negan, 

1050 

Wm. Cyser, 

1115 

John Stone, 

James O’Neill, 

1051 

Richard Howard, 

1116 

Geo. Willis, 

James Weilles, Jr., 

1052 

John Fenry, 

1117 

James Steel, 

Henry Years, 

1053 

Aaron Lex, 

1118 

Wm. Mason, 

James Potter, 

1054 

John Lilly, 

1119 

Joseph Rooland, 

George Manly, 

1055 

James Maull, 

1121 

Patrick McMullin, 

James Nell, 

1056 

Lewis Numan, 

1122 

John Michel, 

Thomas Hanna, 

1057 

John Salters, 

1123 

Samuel Lowings, 

James Gorman, 
Morris Henry, 

1058 

Michael Lobb, 

David Thomas, 

1125 

Joseph Jackson, 

1059 

1126 

James McGnugen, 

Cornelius McGee, 

1060 

John Woods, 

1127 

Geo Miller, 

Edward Hunter, 

1061 

John Smith, 

1128 

Thos. Patton, 

Garrett Ruth, 

1062 

Canedy O’Neill, 

1129 

Chas. Newman, 

James McGoffin, 

Edward McCeue, 

1063 

Daniel Page, 

1130 

John Murtland, 

1064 

Henry Mifflin, 

1131 

John Prapfer, 

Simon Fourn, 

1065 

Edward King, 

1132 

Andrew Wiggens, 

Caleb Wisener, 

1066 

Geo. Girl, 

1133 

Patrick McCully, 

Wm. Cullen, 

1067 

Samuel Lenord, 

1134 

Wm. Haston, 

John Raulston, 

1068 

Henry Gant, 

1135 

Samuel Irwin, 

Jacob Hubert, 

1069 

James Horner, 

1136 

John Lawrence, 

Thomas Caugrove, 

1070 

Geo. Joens, 

1137 

James Mench, 

John What, 

1071 

James Dayley, 

1138 

Henry Kurtz, 

James Cauran, 
Timothy Arthur, 

1072 

Thomas Payne, 

1139 

Patrick McKey, 

1073 

Wm. Dickhark, 

1140 

Richard Howell, 

John H. Smith, 

1074 

Hugh Grover, 

1141 

Moses Goodburn, 

Charles Barnett, 

1075 

Patrick McElroy, 

1142 

Samuel S. Shepperd, 

Robert Mustin, 

1076 

Chas. Moss, 

1143 

Patrick Morgan, 

Allen Miller, 

1077 

Joseph Proctor, 

1144 

Robt. Ludman, 

Samuel Lewis, 

1078 

Joseph Smith, 

1145 

Wm Wistar, 

Robert Deager, 

1079 

Jacob Petters, 
Samuel Perkins, 

1146 

Thos. Conghlin, 

Henry Carr, 

1080 

1147 

John Benson, 

1081 

Alexandria Elliott, 

1148 

Simon Wintworth, 

Joseph Leeds, 

1083 

B. E. Colwell, 

1149 

Peter Wise, 

Owen Kelly, 

1084 

M. J. Lipman, 

1150 

Jas. M. Salvy, 

Henry Grovel, 

1085 

Jacob Baker, 

1153 

Nathan S. Pinkerton, 

Thomas Eyre, 

1086 

Joseph Night, 

1154 

Daniel Nudd, 

James Dickerson, 

1087 

Wm. Potts, 

1155 

Peter O’Rourke, 

Edward Miller, 

1088 

W. S. Owens, 

1156 

Frederick Offerman, 

James McCirrtley, 

1090 

John Simpson, 

1157 

James Millard, 

Daniel Ciskman, 

1091 

Daniel Yertine, 

1158 

Robert Nixon, 

Samuel Noble, 

L092 

John Bancroft, 

1159 

John A. Callihan, 

Henry A. Knowlen, 

1093 

Henry Barton, 

1160 

Geo. Norton, 

Anthony Miller, 

1094 

John Smith, 

1161 

James McCullen, 

John Luney, 

1095 

Isaac Ashmead, 

1162 

Terence Neugent, 

George Hunt, 

1096 

Edward Cummings, 

1163 

Samuel K. Nololand, 

Philips Hunt, 

1097 

John Woodruss, 

1164 

Patrick M. Kewon, 


1098 

Wm. Long, 

1165 

J. L. Mullen, 


1099 

Wm. Harrigan, 

1166 

Thos. McKee, - 

James Fields, 

1100 

George Fineley, 

1167 

Stephen Lowery, 

Andrew Cochran, 

1101 

John Houston, 

1168 

Robt. S. Gray, 


V 


1169 Jonathan Justice, 

1170 Samuel Mutter, 

1171 Geo. McCourd, 

1172 Levy Nollen, 

1173 Lee Bunker, 

1174 Chas. Waiburn, 

1175 Geo. Cross, 

1176 Andrew Regan, 

1177 John Lyburn, 

1178 Nathan Hinser, 

1179 James Linsdown, 

1180 Daniel Hort, 

1181 Jacob Frick, 

1182 John M. Gill, 

1183 Samuel Hemphill 

1184 Jacob Rees, 

1185 Robert Wilson, 

1186 Jacob Mayland, 

1187 Jacob Lex, 


1188 Samuel Haines, 

1189 Joseph Newton, 

1190 James McClean, 

1191 Jacob Lake, 

1192 James Deacon, 

1193 Samuel Collon, 

1194 Win. Bradford, 

1195 Thos. Dickson, 

1196 Lewis Morrison, 

1197 Arthur McClintock, 

1198 Francis McCloskey, 

1199 Wm. Lancaster, 

1200 Chas. Ramsey, 

1201 Richard Jones, 

1202 Anthony Elton, 

1203 Jacob Day, 

1204 Martin Cooke, 

1205 John Chesnut, 

1206 John Klump, 


1207 John Graham, 

1208 Jacob Heunmell, 

1209 John Plumley, 

1210 James Whitehead, 

1211 Henry Blair, 

1212 James Hopkins, 

1213 Edward Parrish, 

1214 Peter Grey, 

1215 John Dey, 

1216 Geo. Brown, 

1217 

1218 
1219 

1217 Lewis Waterman, 

1218 John Richards, 

1219 James Wray, 

1220 Aaron Middleton, 

1221 John Field, 

1222 Samuel Mullegrew 

1223 David Abrahams. 


Schedule [B] the same. 


PETITION FOR AMENDMENT. 

To the Honorable the Judges of the Court of Quarter Sessions, the Petition of the 
Subscribers, Citizens and Qualified Electors of the County of Philadelphia, 

Showetii— 

That they crave leave to amend their petition, filed in your Honorable Court on 
the 18th of October, 1850, in the following particulars, which they are advised may 
be considered by your Honors as important in point of form. 

To insert at the end of the specifications of said petition the following averment: 

1.—That at the said general election at the several wards, townships and districts 
of the said city and county of Philadelphia, there were returned as having been cast 


for the office of District Attorney, 

For Horn R. Kneass, nineteen thousand six hundred and forty votes, • 19,640 

For William B. Reed, nineteen thousand five hundred and fifty-five votes, 19,555 
For William R. Dickerson, two thousand six hundred and thirty-three votes, 2,633 
For Peter A. Browne, two hundred and forty votes, .... 240 

For Richard Chapman, one vote,. 1 

For Isaac R. Dickerson, one vote,. 1 


Whereby it appears that, according to said return, Horn R. Kneass received for the 
said office of District Attorney, eighty five votes more than William B. Reed, and was 
thereupon declared and returned as duly sleeted, which said return your petitioners 
aver to be false and fraudulent, and that William B. Reed received a large majority of 
said votes, and not the said Horn R. Kneass. Your petitioners, in order that there 
may be no misconception on the subject, now bring into Court, append to this peti¬ 
tion, and exhibit to your Honors a copy of said return, duly certified, under the seal 
of the Court of Common Pleas, of which, as well as of the Court of Quarter Sessions, 
your Honors are the Judges. 

2.—To insert in the 3d (third) specification after the words cast the following “for 
th« office of District Attorney,” and to insert after the word added, “and were frau¬ 
dulently counted and returned as having been cast for the said Horn R. Kneass, there 
being counted and returned for William B. Reed but ninety-four votes.” 




VI 


Your petitioners, sincerely desirous that the grounds of their complaint may be 
fully and thoroughly inquired into, crave leave in the above particulars to amend their 
said petition. And they will ever pray, &c. 


Sami. E. Wallington, 
I). M. Mathieu, 
Beauchamp Murray, 
Robert Murray, 
Matthew Perkins, 
George E. Murray, 
Wm. Duffy, 


Thomas Robson, 
John Jarden, 

Fred. W. Christian, 
Jas. S. Oellers, 
William Glading, 
John Devereux, 

Jas. G. Smith, 


E. P. Burton, 
Robert Burton, 
Jas. Carstairs, 
David Carstairs, 
Jas. Barratt, 
Thos. Smith, 
James S. Pringle. 


Samuel E. Wallington Dauphin M. Mathieu, two of the above petitioners, being 
duly and severally sworn, say that they are qualified electors of the county of Phila¬ 
delphia, and that the facts as stated in the foregoing petition are true to the best of 
their knowledge and belief. SAMUEL E. WALLINGTON, 

DAUPHIN M. MATHIEU. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, this sixteenth (16th) day of November, A. D. 1850. 

JOEL COOK, Alderman. 


RETURN JUDGES CERTIFICATE. 

We, the return judges of a general election held on Tuesday, the eighth day of 
October, A. D. 1850, in and for the city and county of Philadelphia, at the several 
election districts thereof, for the purpose of electing a District Attorney of said 
county, having met this day according to law, at the State House, in the city of Phila¬ 
delphia, and carefully compared the returns from the several election districts of the 


said county, do hereby certify that, 

Horn R. Kneass had nineteen thousand six hundred and forty votes, - 19,640 

William B. Reed had nineteen thousand five hundred and fifty-five votes, 19,555 

William R. Dickerson had two thousand six hundred and thirty-three votes, 2,633 

Peter A. Browne had two hundred and forty votes, .... 240 

Richard Chapman had one vote, - 1 

Isaac R. Dickerson had one vote, ........ 1 


And we do further certify that Horn R. Kneass had the highest number of votes 
polled for District Attorney, as aforesaid, and that he therefore was, and hereby is. 
declared duly elected District Attorney for the said district, composed of the city and 
county of Philadelphia. 

In testimony wffiereof, we, the said judges, have hereunto set our hands and seals 
this eleventh day of October, in the year of our Lord, eighteen hundred and fifty. 


Joseph Enue, 

[Seal ] 

Fras. McBride, 

[Seal.] 

R. B. Heintzelman, 

[Seal.] 

Thomas Gore, 

[Seal.] 

Silas Suplee, 

M. H. Skeehan, 

[Seal.] 

N. L. Jones, 

[Seal] 

[Seal.] 

Joseph P. Andrews, 

[Seal.] 

Samuel Deingas, 

[Seal.] 

R. W. Solly, 

[Seal.] 

R. Donagan, 

[Seal.] 

John Webb, 

[Seal.] 

R. D. West, 

[Seal.] 

Myers Edwards, 

[Seal.] 

Adam Gamber, 

[Seal] 

Geo. W. Wolf, 

[Seal.[ 

Henry Dew'ees, 

[Seal.] 

Jonathan Brook, 

[Seal] 

James H. Park, 

[Seal.] 

Cornelius L. De Groot, 

[Seal.] 

Jacob Mears, 

C. E. Clayton, 

[Seal.] 

John Caldwell, 

[Seal.] 

[Seal.] 


Attest, 


JOHN J. M’CAHEN, ) „ , ^ . 

JAMES T. DESMOND, \ Return Clerks. 


I certify that the above is a correct copy of the return made by the return judges 
for the city and county of Philadelphia, for District Attorney. Witness my hand and 
the seal of the Court affixed this fourteenth day of November, A. D. 1850. 

[Seal.] JOHN M. COWELL, Pro Prolhonotary . 



vil 


OPINION OF JUDGE PARSONS. 


February 4, 1851, 

By the 3d section of the act of the 3d of May, 1850, entitled an act “ Providing for 
the Election of District Attorney,” it is declared, that “all elections of District 
Attorneys shall be contested, and decided in the same manner as is now provided by 
law for contesting the election of County Officers.” 

The act of the 2d of July, 1839, gives authority to the several Courts of Quarter 
Sessions in the State, to hear and determine all cases in which the election of any 
county or township officer is contested, upon the petition of at least twenty qualified 
electors of the proper county or township, complaining of an undue election or false 
return of such officer, and gives to the Court all the powers which are conferred upon 
Committees of the Legislature by the several provisions of that act. 

Under these laws a petition was presented, signed by the requisite number of citi¬ 
zens of the County, duly verified by affidavit, complaining of an undue election, and 
false return of Horn R. Kneass, Esq., as District Attorney of this County, at an elec¬ 
tion held in October last. On the requisite notice being given, Mr. Kneass appeared 
by counsel, and moved that 18 out of the 26 specifications set forth in the petition be 
stricken out, and that he should not be required to answer them, upon the ground that 
some of them were too general, so much so, that the respondent could not know what 
he will be called upon to meet; and secondly, that otherwise for mere irregularities 
in relation to the conduct of the officers who held the election without any allegation 
of fraud, and which irregularities, if sustained by proof, would in no way affect the 
result of the election as expressed by legal votes, or a decision of the case on the 
merits. 

It has been gravely argued by one of the counsel for the petitioners, that this court 
have no legal authority for striking out any of the specifications in the petition, and 
that such an application cannot be entertained. But if the learned counsel had looked 
at the previous decisions of this court, it would have been found that we have repeat¬ 
edly decided, that on adjudicating upon cases of contested elections under this and 
similar Acts of Assembly, w r e will look alone at the merits , and that we will not , for 
mere irregularities, in the acts of those who conduct elections, or in matters of form 
where there is no fraud, and the acts complained of would not affect the result, enter¬ 
tain these applications; nor will we listen to mere general allegations, without spe¬ 
cifying some illegal conduct which has relation to the merits; and moreover, that as 
far as possible, these cases of contested elections must be assimilated as nearly as can 
be to all other legal proceedings. The cases of Skerret and Lelar, are full to this 
point; and had the decisions in those cases, and the records been carefully examined 
by counsel, it would be unjust in the court, to believe, that the numerous irrelevant 
matters now upon the record and for consideration, would have ever appeared; for 
certainly no such allegations as many of them appear to be, could ever find favor or 
even countenance, by any court w 7 ho are consistent, or that is disposed to pay the 
least regard to legal points. 

In deciding upon cases of this description, we do unhesitatingly rule, that we will 
strike from the petition all irrelevant or general allegat ons, and specifications which 
in no w 7 ay can properly affect the merits of the case, or the general result, nor require 
the individual who has the return to answer such. This is the course adopted by all 
judicial tribunals who decide law and fact:— 

In cases before the Ecclesiastical Courts in England for divorce, a petition is pre¬ 
sented in which articles , as they are called, are alleged under separate heads, according 
to their subject matter; (which course under the name of specifications, is adapted in 
the present’case.) But before such articles are admitted to be proof, it is competent 
for the adverse party to object to their admission, either in whole or in part; these 
objections are made and discussed before the Judge, who admits an article to proof, or 
rejects it, according as he may be of opinion that it exhibits a legal cause of com¬ 
plaint, &c. Hence, if the parties state candidly the facts capable of proof, they can 
take the opinion of the Judge in the first instance, whether in such a case, as the one 
proposed to be proved, the party complaining has any legal remedy for his supposed 
^ wrong;— such is the law 7 here.—Select Equity cases 332. Butler vs. Butler. 

So in a Court of Equity, if a bill contain matter impertinent or irrelevant, the 
Court will order it to be stricken out before an answer is filed. Or, if an answer is 
loaded with subjects of the same nature, the Court will refer it to a master to leport 


vm 


as to irrelevancy or impertinence, in order that the questions of any importance or 
validity, if established by proof may be decided upon by the Court in order that the 
justice of the case may be ascertained in accordance with settled legal rules. Hence, 
we say, that many of these specific objections are well taken, and we shall strike from 
the petition all those, which, if sustained by proof, in our opinion would be no suffi¬ 
cient ground for setting aside the election. 

We shall consider each in their order. 

The first is too general, and gives no substantial, intelligible or satisfactory reason 
why Mr. Kneass was not elected to the office for which he has the certificate, and 
therefore is ordered to be stricken out; no proof need be introduced in relation to it- 

The second specification, so far as it relates to the election and votes in the Town¬ 
ship of West Philadelphia, and the Fifth Ward of Kensington, is sufficiently specific 
as to the polls in those places, and if it had been averred, the result would have been 
thereby changed, and a statement of the votes, so that the Court could have seen that 
it would have affected the merits of the case, it would be. sufficient, but the allegation 
that in other Wards and Districts votes were cast for William B. Reed, which were 
counted for Mr. Kneass, is too general. 

The third specification is good, if it had been averred that the votes cast in the 
Second Ward of Moyamensing had been cast for District Attorney, and for whom they 
were cast, and also that such falsely returned votes as having been cast wfien no such 
votes were given, would have changed the result. 

The fourth specification is good, had there been an averment that it would have 
affected the merits of the case, or shown to the Court that the result would have been 
changed, and the manner in which the change would have been produced. 

The fifth specificatin i3 not one that need be answered, because there is no allega¬ 
tion of fraud that in consequence of the simulated tally papers the return Judges were 
imposed upon, or that'they, in making up their final count and report, acted upon any 
other than a genuine return of the correct number of legal votes. For such conduct 
the officers of the election may be punished, but it would be no ground for setting 
aside an election in every respect truly correct. 

The sixth specification, taken in connection with schedule A, with regard to illegal 
voters, is good and sufficiently specific to be the subject of proof, if there had been an 
averment that the reception of such illegal votes would have affected the merits of 
the case, so as to have changed the result, and that change in the result had been 
stated in the petition. 

The seventh specification is one that ought to be the subject of investigation, if 
there had been such averments in relation to the merits of the case and the effect on 
the final result, as has been above mentioned. 

The eighth specification has relation to a mere irregularity and improper conduct on 
the part of the officers of the election, after it had closed, for which they may be 
punished, but while it is not alleged the regular votes cast were altered thereby, it is 
not a ground for setting aside the election, and therefore not a matter of inquiry in 
this proceeding. The ninth specification is disposed of by the last remarks. 

If there had been an allegation of fraud or deception, as averred in the tenth specifi¬ 
cation, and there was an assertion that the count was irregular, or that there was a 
mistake because the Judge was an illiterate man, then there would be good ground 
for an inquiry into the facts; but when, for aught that appears in the petition, the 
count was legal, and there was no mistake, fraud or imposition; but all was done as 
if under the supervision of the most perfect scholar, it would be no ground for setting 
aside an election because one of the officers happened not to be a learned man. It 
would be far better that the most intelligent should conduct our elections; but unless 
the officers commit a mistake, or are guilty of fraud, an election should not be an¬ 
nulled, especially when its integrity is not in any way impeached by those who object 
thereto. 

The eleventh specification is good if substantiated by proof, had the Court been in¬ 
formed that it would have changed the result, and in what particular. 

The twelfth has relation to a mere irregularity on the part of the officers after the 
election, in not depositing the ballot boxes with the nearest magistrate within one 
day after the election, but there is no averment that they altered a vote, or tally 
paper; hence it is not a subject on which proof is required. The thirteenth may be 
classed under the same head. 

The fourteenth has relation to one of the officers of the election who it is alleged 
was a Guardian of the Poor. A majority of this Court has decided that this is not a 
sufficient ground for setting aside an election, and therofore rve are bound by what has 
been determined. 


IX 


The fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth specifications are all charges of fraud, 
which, if sustained by proof as alleged would render the election void, if the result 
would be changed by these acts, and give the election to another, or render that of 
him who has the return uncertain; and if it had been averred in the petition, that it 
would affect the merits of the case, and we were informed thereby, how the result 
would be changed. . 

Had it been averred in the eighteenth specification that there had been any fraud 
perpetrated by the acts set forth therein, or that the conduct of the officers had any 
effect upon the final count and return, then it might be sustained, as it is now stated 
upon the record it must be stricken out. 

The nineteenth specification is similar in its character to the sixteenth, and the two 
that follow, and the remarks just made with regard to those may be applied to this 
and will be again referred to. 

The twentieth, twenty-first, and twenty-second specificatioas must be stricken out, 
for reasons that have been stated in regard to others which have already been pro¬ 
nounced insufficient. 

The twenty-third specification, if sustained by proof, would be good, if not obnox¬ 
ious to the objections which have been already noticed with regard to others, on which 
an opinion has been expressed. 

The twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth specifications must be stricken 
out, as being too general in their character, and wanting in that precision and exacti¬ 
tude which has been noted in previous cases; nor is there any allegation of fraud in 
the 24th, and therefore the observations which have been made as to other specifica¬ 
tions in this petition are applicable to these. 

There is also a motion to quash the whole petition, upon the ground that even ad¬ 
mitting all that is stated therein to be sustained by proof, it would be no ground for 
setting the election aside, because the Court are not informed that it would produce 
any effect upon the merits of the election or change the result. 

It is difficult to distinguish this case from that of Sheriff Lelar, as contested under 
the same Act of Assembly, or from that of Dr. Skerret and Mr. Carpenter, which 
arose under an act similar in most of its provisions to the present. It is the unanimous 
opinion of the Court that the case of Carpenter, decided a few weeks ago, rules the 
present, and all that was said in the opinion then delivered applies with peculiar force 
here, and must be considered as settling the law in this case. This petition is wanting 
in all those essential averments which we then pointed out as vital defects, and there¬ 
fore must be pronounced equally bad with that. 

The oft repeated argument has been again enforced *ipon us by eminent counsel* 
and with great ability to give a liberal construction of the law under which we act* 
to regard the rights of the people, and, to use the language of one of the learned 
counsel, to have a “ merciful consideration of the people.” A high regard for the 
true interest and rights of the people, and the wffiole community alone , has ever been 
our guide in the construction, which has been given to the laws in relation to con¬ 
tested elections. When an election has been fairly held, and the returns properly 
made, the people do^not wish the popular will, thus expressed through the ballot box, 
set at nought on mere technicalities, or for irregularities in making the returns, or by 
the improper conduct of officers who are appointed to control the same, when there is 
no fraud or chicanery practiced, and nothing done which would, in any way, affect the 
integrity of the legal votes cast. It is disappointed candidates and active politicians 
who generally complain of elections after they are passed, and their favorite candidate 
defeated. A sacred regard for the elective franchise; a reverence for the popular 
will, legitimately expressed through the ballot box, has admonished us not to treat 
this great cardinal right in our government lightly, nor attempt to change the opinions 
of our fellow' citizens fairly expressed as to the merits of their candidates for official 
stations. It is a subject so delicate, that it must ever be considered with a cautious 
and nice discrimination, for we are reviewing the conduct of the people’s agents, and 
the expression of the sovereign will. 

But no one can doubt, that when the ballot box is tainted by fraud, when honest 
electors have been cheated in the casting of their votes, when there has been a dis¬ 
honest count, a false return, and a gross misrepresentation of the true number of the 
votes polled: all such fraudulent acts go to show that such is not a correct expression 
of the popular will; it is not a legitimate election by the people ; such is not a fair 
representation of popular sentiment through the ballot box; but all is void, because it 
is contaminated by fraud, and ceases to be that true expression of the voice of the 
people as required by the law. 


X 


Hence we have ever said, make a charge of fraud and dishonesty in a clear, tangi¬ 
ble form, so that the candidate elect may meet it, so that the perpetrators of the fraud 
may be brought to justice, and all such allegations shall be examined with the closest 
scrutiny, and when fully sustained by proof, the people shall be vindicated in their 
rights, and their will clearly ascertained, suffered to have its complete sway. Such 
have been the great and leading principles which have heretofore controlled us; nor 
do we see any reason for retracing our steps. 

There is, however, another important question for our decision in this case. After 
the motion to quash had been made, and before the argument began, the counsel for 
the contestants moved to amend their petition so as to meet the objections made 
against its validity, set forth in the motion to quash, w r hich amendment, if allowed, 
would make all the specifications, not ordered to be stricken out, good; and obviate 
the objection on w’hich the motion to quash is made. The question is at once pre¬ 
sented—can an amendment be allowed on a petition to set aside an election ? 

It is contended by the counsel for the contestants, that this petition is susceptible of 
an amendment under the 63d Sect, of the Act of the 21st of March, 1806; but in our 
opinion this act cannot with propriety be applied to a case like the present. The 
suits where the court are required by that law to allow amendments, are specially 
defined by the act, which are those actions brought for “ moneys owing or due, or for 
damages by trespass or otherwise.” It is therefore difficult to bring the present ap¬ 
plication within the provisions of this law, so as to make it a binding statutory direc¬ 
tion to the court, such as to require them to allow the amendment as a matter of right, 
as is alw r ays done in suits described in the act. 

If then this amendment can be allowed at all, it must be under the general common 
law power which can be exercised in all cases w'here there is no express prohibition 
in the statute giving jurisdiction to the court, in the case presented for adjudication. 
In this view alone the question must be considered. 

In the first place it may be remarked, there is nothing in the act of 1839, w r hich 
prohibits the allowance of amendments ; on the contrary, the powders conferred upon 
the court are large and extensive, and the discretion limited only by those great prin¬ 
ciples which govern courts in the exercise of these common law powers. 

What then are the rules under the common law which govern the court in granting 
or refusing amendments? 

It is said by Chief Justice Tilghman, in the case of Benner v. Fry, 1 Binney, 369, 
that amendments are reducible to no certain rule, but that each case must be left to 
the sound discretion of the court; and that the best principle seemed to be, that an 
amendment should or should not be permitted to be made, as it w r ould best tend to the 
furtherance of justice. It is said in Baily v. Musgrave, 2 S. & K. 219, when the ob¬ 
ject of an amendment is to*do justice, courts are vested w r ith extensive powers, not 
only by statute but by the common law. In the case of Fisher v. Rutherford, 1 Bald. 
Rp. 193, it was ruled that where there w T as a want of an averment of citizenship of 
parties, it could be supplied by an amendment. In the case of Caster v Wood, same 
book, an answer made under oath was allowed to be amended by the inseition of new 
matter, material to the case. The court there say, such an application is not a matter 
of course, but must depend on the discretion of the court. 

In the case of Mogargill v. The Hazleton Coal Co., 8th Watts & Serg. 347, it was 
ruled that an action qni tam could be amended by inserting the name of the common 
informer, after an appeal to the Common Pleas, and when the cause came on for trial. 
In the case of Sweeny v. Delany, 1 Barr. 320, an amendment was allowed by the 
transfer of the record in one case to that of another, when it resulted in the loss of an 
appeal from the award of arbitrators, and the Supreme Court say, the common law 
power of the court below was adequate to the amendment, nor was such an exercise 
of discretion the subject of a writ of error. To the same point is Davis v. Church 1 
Watts & Serg. 242; Commonwealth v. Hutt, 6 Barr. 470. 

From these and many other authorities which might be cited, it is well settled in 
Pennsylvania, that amendments not regulated by the act of 1806 must be granted or 
refused under the exercise of a sound discretion of the court for the furtherance of 
public justice, and is not the subject of review by a higher court—in short, it is an 
appeal to the conscience of a Judge. 

It is admitted by the counsel for the respondent that in England in cases of quo 
warranto, where the validity of elections are generally contested, under such a form 
of proceedings that amendments are allowed to the information, but this is done by 
express statute, and without such power by statute it could not be exercised. But in 
this State it has been ruled that in this class of cases, it was doubtful whether 
the act of 1806 did apply; yet say the court we have the power to authorise amend- 


D 

Xl 


nients in pleadings, which tve are always disposed to exercise in furtherance of sub¬ 
stantial justice .—Commonwealth vs. Gill, 3 Whart. 236. 

Against the exercise of this power in petitions of this kind, two classes of cases 
have been relied upon by the counsel for the respondent. The first is the case of 
The King Barzey et nl Maul and Selmyn 253, decided in 1816, which was an 
application to amend an affidavit in the case of quo warranto, and it was refused, for, 
say the court, it would be a dangerous precedent to permit the parties to amend it, 
but they must make a new application. 

The others are the cases of Roset vs. Hartly, 7 Adal and Ellis, 522, Bodfield vs. 
Padmore, 5 Adol and Ellis, 785, when a party had obtained a rule before one Judge 
in a bail court, and it had been discharged, it was held that a new rule should not be 
granted. The cases of The King vs. Francis. 2 Adol and Ellis, 49, and The King vs. 
Smithson, 861, were cases where an application had been made for a criminal infor¬ 
mation, that had been heard and determined, when a new application was made on 
additional affidavits, and the second application was refused, “because,” say the 
court, “the parties should come prepared in cases of this sort at the first hearing.” 
The case ot the Queen vs. Benton, 9 Dowling, 1022, was a case where there had been 
a verdict for the defendant, but leave was given on a point resumed to enter a verdict 
for the crown, and a rule was granted for that purpose which was argued and made 
absolute. The defendant afterwards obtained a rule for the purpose of confining the 
verdict for the crown to the two first counts in the indictments, and this was discharged 
because the parties had before had a full hearing on the case. The case of the Queen 
vs. Harland, Dowling 323, has also been relied upon, which was a case where there 
had been an application for an attachment against the clerk of assize, for not returning 
a writ of certiorari; but the rule was discharged. A second rule was applied for, 
which the court refused upon the ground that the case had been fully heard, and they 
would not suffer the application to be renewed. 

In my opinion, these authorities do not apply to a case like the present. All the 
cases except that of the King vs. Barzey, were cases which were ruled upon an arbi¬ 
trary practice established in the English Courts, for the government of their own par¬ 
ticular manner for the transaction of business, and were not decided upon any of the 
. great and established principles which govern the Courts, either in England or this 
country, in the exercise of a sound discretion in relation to the justice, or the merits 
of a given case. 

Further, in none of them except that above referred to, was there an application to 
amend the record, but all are motions for a new or further hearing, when the point 
had been heard and decided. Had the Court in the present case heard the parties on 
their petition and objections, and a full argument of the whole matter, after which the 
cause had been dismissed, and this was a new petition, and a second hearing was ap¬ 
plied for on a more perfect petition, than I can perceive now, these authorities might 
be supposed to have some bearing on a question presented under other circumstances. 
But such is not the case we are now considering 

Here is an application to amend, so soon as the defect is pointed out, before a step 
is taken in the hearing of the cause. I therefore cannot conceive how these cases can 
in any respect be said to rule the present, because they establish no principle, and 
decide no point of amendment. 

The case of The King vs. Barzey was an application to amend an affidavit in a case 
of quo warranto. It was not to amend a suggestion which would be more like the 
present case. Nor was it to amend a plea filed by the defendant; therefore, it would 
have really no weight on a question of pleading to which the present proposition must 
be assimilated. But whatever may be the value of this authority, it is sufficient for 
our purpose, that the Supreme Court in this State have ruled directly the reverse ; 
for in the case of the Commonwealth vs Gill, an amendment was allowed in a case of 
quo warranto, an entire plea was permitted to be withdrawn and another substituted. 

Sitting as we do in a Pennsylvania Court, we should be bound by the decisions of 
the tribunal of last resort here, rather than those of a foreign Court. It is to our law 
I feel bound to submit, not only as a duty, but upon principle, no matter what may 
be its operation on suitors. In this connection I have examined all the authorities on 
which the counsel for the respondent have relied. 

Two questions then arise for deliberate consideration. First—Will the Court ever 
allow a petition in the case of a contested election to be amended? Second—Is the 
amendment now asked, one that can be permitted by any established rules of law ? 

In my opinion, there are cases where the Court ought to allow a petition of this de¬ 
scription to be amended,—as an illustration, suppose one is presented charging the 
grossest fraud in a clear and specific form, with a direct averment, that those fraudu¬ 
lent acts changed the result, and the manner in which the result would have been 


Xll 


changed; but it was entitled of the Common Fleas , instead of the Court of Quarter 
Sessions, where the contested election of county officers must be heard ; and the con- 
testants'asked leave to amend by entitling it at the proper Court, can any one doubt 
that such an amendment ought to be allowed, and that it would be, by a Court wish¬ 
ing to administer justice to suitors ? 

That it would be, there have been many authorities cited to show, and others will 
be in the consideration of the next proposition—and moreover, we have settled prin¬ 
ciples in previous election cases, which if now maintained and adhered to as sound 
law, will absolutely prevent our deciding that no amendment can be allowed in any 
case. 

To say that we will refuse an amendment in all cases would be in opposition to the 
previous indications of the opinions of a majority of this Court in the previous cases ; 
and utterly inconsistent with the principles laid down by us in Carpenter’s case, a 
few weeks since. 

It was declared by Judge King, in the case of the County Treasurer, decided Oc¬ 
tober, 1845, that il liberty would be granted to amend the petition if application was 
made.” Although the point did not come up for a direct adjudication, yet Judge 
Jones and myself being upon the bench at the time with the President Judge, when 
the announcement W T as made in that case, my own opinion responded to what w’as then 
indicated, as the expressed sentiment of the Court, and T am confident that an amend 
ment w’ould have been granted if asked for, but it was intimated by the counsel that 
they preferred a review of our opinion on the petition as it then stood, by the Supreme 
Court. It was with a full recollection of the views then indicated by my brethren 
on the bench that I ventured to make the assertion in the Penn District Election case 
last spring, cited on the argument, while I differed from my brethren on the main 
point decided, and when this ojnnion was read in their hearing, there was no dissent 
from the proposition that if a petition was defective, it could be amended. 

It is said by tis in the case of Carpenter, (all the Judges agreeing thereto), that it 
w r as to the merits of the case alone the Court would look; that as to mere matters of 
form or irregularities which could have no bearing on the result we would npt listen; 
and this principle must be applied as well to a question of pleading as to a review of 
the conduct of election officers. How can the Court determine upon the merits of a 
case, if we sternly refuse to let the parties present the facts fully before us, or drive 
them out of Court on a mere technicality, or form of pleading, or some slight error 
or slip of the pen, as we shall do if we lay down the broad doctrine that a petition of 
this description can never be commended in any particular ? It is the opinion of a 
majority of the Court that an amendment can be allowed to a petition for the contest 
of an election; and this must depend upon the exercise of a sound discretion by the 
Court in each particular case, with a design for the furtherance of public justice. It 
is difficult to say in what cases an amendment would be allowable. It is much more 
easy to lay down a rule when it would not be. An amendment would never be per¬ 
mitted when the charges in the petition were general in their character, or when the 
specifications had relation to mere irregularities in the conduct of the officers as to the 
return, informalities in the same, when there was no charge of fraud, or allegation 
that it could have had any influence upon the result; and in no instance if the charges 
sustained by proof would afford no substantial ground for setting aside the election. 

The second point for consideration is, w'hether the amendment now proposed is one 
that the Court ought to allow? In the opinion of a majority of the Court the amend¬ 
ment now proposed is one that should be permitted. And first, because it is a settled 
rule, both in this country and in England, that in all legal proceedings amendments 
are allowed where there.is anything to amend by. Green vs. Bennett, 1 Term R 782, 

8 T. & R , 157. 

It has been shown that in eleven, out of the twenty-six specifications, there are 
charges of direct fraud , mentioning the Wards and the manner in which the alleged 
frauds w r ere perpetrated : 

Take, for instance, the fourth specification, where it is charged, “ That in the Se¬ 
cond Ward, Moyamensing, one hundred and fifty-three votes and upwards were de¬ 
posited for William B. Reed as District Attorney ; whereas, the officers of the elec¬ 
tion have fraudulently returned but ninety-four votes, the remainder being either 
fraudulently withdrawn from the ballot-box, or counted as having been given for 
Horn R. Kneass ;” now the amendment proposed is, to add, that by this, the result 
w’as changed, that by giving the number of votes which each candidate received, it 
would show to the Court how, and in what manner the result would be changed. 
Here, then, we have the very case coming within the rule above laid down, something 
to amend by, to wit: the fraud charged, the place wffiere it was committed, and the 
extent thereof, I do not see how we can refuse it if we regard this as a proceeding in 


xm 


<i Court of law, and are consistent with former decisions. We have said hut a few 
weeks ago, that these contested elections must, as far as possible, be assimilated to 
other legal proceedings, (see Carpenter’s case.) What then, is the rule in all other 
legal proceedings ? We have given some cases ; I will mention a few more, which 
seem to apply with peculiar force here :—An appeal of murder may be amended, 
femith vs. Bow'en, 11 Mod. 230. A recognizance of bail may be amended and made 
agreeable to the writ, Kittingham vs. Wilbourn, Ca. Prac. C. P. 75. In ejectment 
the time of the demise may be enlarged, Oates vs. Shephard, 2 Strange 1272, Gale 
vs Babcock, 4 W C. C. R. 199. A declaration in a penal action may be amended, 1 
v\ lUon 2-j6. So the Court allowed a plaintiff to amend his declaration in a penal 
action, after the time limited for bringing another action, there having been no unne¬ 
cessary delay in his proceedings, Cross vs. Kaye, 6 T.. R. 543. A declaration in 
an action for usury was amended after the record was made up, carried down to 
trial and withdrawn by the plaintiff, Mace vs. Lovett, 5 Barr 2S33. It is said in Rex 
ys. Holland, 4 T. R. 457, and Rex vs. Wilkes, 4 Barr 2527, amendments in criminal 
informations are now so much a matter of course that they are made on application 
to a judge at Chambers, Cole on Crim. Inform. 70, 1 Chitty C. L. 868. Cases of 
this sort are more like the one under consideration than, perhaps, of any other kind. 
With these conclusive authorities, and many more which might be cited to the same 
point, if they are to have the least influence upon the judicial mind, I do not see how 
the present amendment can be refused, if we adhere to our previous ruling, that we 
will liken these petitions to other legal proceedings. 

But in my opinion there is another ground on which the present application should 
be allowed still stronger if possible. There are a number of specifications in which 
there is a direct charge of fraiid , which, If sustained by proof, are of the most 
flagrant kind, and had the petitioners averred that these alleged .fraudulent acts would 
have changed the result, and how it would be changed, it must be admitted this Court 
would have had no hesitation in at once directing the proof to be taken. So soon as 
this omission is pointed out, the contestants propose to insert all in their petition 
which the respondent requires, to make it proper that an inquiry should be had. 
Therefore, in our opinion, w r e ought now to permit the petition to be amended. The 
cause of public justice demands it. It is due to the people of the county, and it is 
due to the gentleman who holds the certificate ; for I am sure he, or no other high- 
minded, honorable man, would wish to hold an office so important, except by the 
suffrages of a majority of the people, truly and fairly expressed. And we should do 
an injury to Mr. Kneass, as well as to the cause of public justice, if, in the exercise 
of a sound discretion, we refuse to open the doors of a judicial tribunal for a full 
inquiry into charges so grave as those alleged in this petition, if it can be done con¬ 
sistently with the rules of law, and the practice in legal proceedings. That it can 
. be, I think has been abundantly shown by authority. 

In this exercise of a sound discretion relative to the allowance of amendments, the 
court should always have in view the great object in all legal proceedings the eluci- 
dation of truth ; also a desire to detect and expose fraud. Therefore, if there was no 
other ground, the specific allegation of fraud should be sufficient. When the Supreme 
Court, in the case of Mitchell vs. Kintzer, 5 Barr. 216, also reported in 8 Barr. 67, 
have held that a decree of an Orphan’s Court, and a sale by an administrator in pur¬ 
suance thereof, a deed executed, a judgment subsequently entered against the pur¬ 
chaser, and a sale by the Sheriff in the same, and his deed solemnly executed, may 
all be impeached and set aside on the ground of fraud; surely this court would be 
wanting in respect for adjudicated cases if we should refuse to suffer an investigation 
of an election fraud involving the right of suffrage of forty thousand voters in this city 
and county. And perhaps there is no case where the eloquent language of Judge 
Coulter in the case of Mitchell vs. Kintzer could be cited with more propriety than 
in the present.— “ In the eye of the law,” says the learned Judge, “ fraud spoils every¬ 
thing it touches. The broad seal of the Commonwealth is crumbled into dust, as 
against the interest designed to be defrauded. Every transaction of life between in¬ 
dividuals in which it mingles is corrupted by its contagion. Why then should it find 
shelter in the decrees of courts? There is the last place on earth where it ought to 
find refuge. But it is not protected by record, judgment or decree; wherever and 
whenever it is detected its disguises fall around it, and the lurking spirit of mischief, 
as if touched by the spear of Ithuriel, stands exposed to the rebuke and condemnation 
of the law.” 

In my opinion we should be wanting in a faithful administration of that high trust 
which the legislature has confided to us by the act of 1839, if we should refuse the 
amendment now asked we should give countenance to an alleged fraud, and perhaps 


XIV 


conceal it from public view; a thing which no principle of law sanctions, and which, 
as a judge, I never hare, and never will suffer, when presented to my view. 

ft has been contended that the amendment in the form now offered cannot be 
allowed, inasmuch as there are more than thirty citizens w'ho signed the original peti¬ 
tion, and only twenty one of them have signed a petition for the present amendment, 
although verified by the same persons who made the affidavit to the original petition. 

This objection on no sound principle can be sustained. Suppose an election has 
been carried by the most abominable fraud—the act requires that there should be 
twenty citizens of the county to sign a petition for the contest. Ten of those who 
were concerned in the fraud might unite with ten innocent individuals in the contest, 
and then appear and ask to withdraw, or to refuse to unite in an amendment clearly 
admissible, and thereby conceal the very frandthey had concocted and perpetrated. I 
concur with Judge Woodw r ard in his able opinion, found in the 3d vol., Penn L. J. 160, 
that the jurisdiction of the Court had attached from the moment the petition was 
filed, and a few individuals, by withdrawing, should not shut out all inquiry. Here 
the number have signed the petition to amend, which is required by the act, which is 
a sufficient answer to the objection, and even if they had not, it is not clear we would 
suffer the course of public justice to be obstructed, because some chose to withdraw. 
Therefore, in our opinion, the amendment proposed should be filed, and be considered 
as forming a part of the original petition for the purpose of a future investigation of 
the case, and, therefore, the motion to quash is overruled, and testimony ordered to be 
taken, and to be confined to those specifications which are not ordered to be stricken 
out as indicated at the commencement of this opinion. 

In order that there may be no misapprehension as to the views of the Court, we 
will enumerate the specifications on which proof may be taken under the amendment 
made part of this petition. 

It may be taken as to the second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eleventh, fifteenth, 
sixteenth, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twenty-third. The others are ordered to be 
stricken out. 




OPINION OF JUDGE CAMPBELL. 

Two motions were originally made by respondent’s counsel in this case. One to 
quash the whole petition on account of its defectiveness; the other to strike out cer¬ 
tain specifications on account of their immateriality. It is unnecessary for me now 
to go into a consideration of the first question. In the decision of this Court, in the 
case of George Carpenter, and the reasons which led to that decision, I fully concurred. 
The petition now before us exhibits the same glaring defect. In no part of it does the 
vote which Mr. Kneass and Mr. Reed respectively received appear, nor the majority 
by which Mr. Kneass was elected. If the original petition, therefore, was before us, 
it would have to share the fate of its predecessor. A novel, and, as it strikes me, 
startling proposition has been submitted to us in this case. After the defects of the 
original petition had been show T n in the motion to quash, and after the argument in the 
case of George Carpenter, a petition was then presented to us, asking permission to 
amend the original petition in its defective parts. For the first time since this juris¬ 
diction was conferred on us, has there been an application made to amend. Petition 
after petition, complaining of undue elections, have been presented to us ; motion after 
motion to quash has been sustained, and the officers whose elections have thus been 
complained of, have quietly served out their term of office. In some of these cases, 
frauds of the gravest character have been charged, and yet in none of them has it ever 
struck the able and experienced gentlemen who had them in charge, that we had the 
power to amend. For years has this Court been laboring to build up a system—rule 
after rule has been laid down, and the parties made to conform to them. Long and 
elaborated opinions have been delivered by two of the Judges of this Court—laying 
down the rules, and giving the reasons for them, and now as it strikes me, we are 
asked at one fell swoop, to destroy a work of so much time and labor. The reasons 
which led to the adoption of these rules, and which caused me to unite with my 
brethren, are equally operative upon me now, and this is one of the reasons which 
obliges me to dissent from the opinion just delivered. 

In the opinion of the Court in Skerrett’s case, delivered by Judge King, the grand 
and leading rule is thus laid down : 



XV 


“ On the whole, we are cleaily and unanimously of opinion, that it is the duty of 
parties complaining against the election or return of an officer under the act of the 2d 
of July, 1839, to set forth the facts on which the complaint is founded plainly and 
succinctly; and that to induce the Court to proceed to the consideration of such a 
complaint, the facts so set lorth, should exhibit a case, which, if sustained in proof, 
would render it the duty of the Court, either to entirely vacate the election, or to de¬ 
clare that another person, and not the party returned, was duly elected to the office in 
question.” 

To this rule we have steadily and uniformly adhered, never lending a ready ear to 
these complaints; conscious that were we to do so, we would become the umpires in 
every hotly contested political contest, a thing totally foreign to our organization, and 
which would tend in a greater or less degree to destroy all confidence in the Judiciary. 

Another equally conclusive reason with me in enforcing the strictest observance of 
this mle, arose from the sacredness of the act we are now called upon to annul. Sworn 
officers chosen by the people had performed the trust confided in them, and had an 
nounced the result of the popular will, and surely, to use the language of the same 
judge who delivered the opinion of the Court in Skerrett’s case : “ before we stir in 
such a business, a complaint precise in its terms, definite in its charges, and adequate 
in its general character, if proved, should, to vacate the elections, be laid before us.” 

Of these rules and this construction of these acts, Judge Parsons, in the opinion re¬ 
cently delivered in the case of Carpenter, very properly remarked, that they were 
well know’n to our citizens—that the Legislature knew them—that other Judges in 
the State had adopted the construction, and that not even a petition had been present¬ 
ed to the Legislature to change the judicial construction thus put upon it, and that we 
had a right to infer from this acquiescence that a majority ol the people of the Com¬ 
monwealth acquiesced in the law as then construed. For a number of years our de¬ 
cisions have been uniform and consistent, but now' we are called upon to undo all that 
we have been doing ; for of what use, I may ask, are these rules, if w r e permit an op¬ 
ponent to tamper with his antagonist—to try the temper of the Court, and when he 
discovers the weakness of his complaint to eke it out with fresh matter. What an 
inducement to perjury is thus held out, and how can the Court hereafter prevent itself 
becoming embroiled in every political contest, a thing which we have heretofore been 
so desirous of avoiding. The whole doctrine laid down in the cases of Skerrett, Lelar 
and Carpenter, might as well be blotted out—better by far that they had never been 
so decided, for they have only misled the community. So strongly did this matter 
strike me, that I confess w hen the long desired opinion of the Supreme Court in Car¬ 
penter’s case w T as announced, I w’as of opinion that this case was at an end; never 
thinking that my brethren could abandon doctrines as, in my opinion, they have now 
done, so long entertained and so recently eulogized by one of them. 

I will now’ proceed to consider whether this petition be amendable under the act of 
the Legislature of 1806, or under the common law r powers of the court. Ihe act of 
1806 itself, defines the word “suit,” and w T e need not look out of the statute for a 
definition. It will only be necessary to quote the 6th section to show that it cannot 
apply to a class of cases like the present. “ In all cases,” says that section, “ w'hen 
any suit has been brought in any court of record within this commonw 7 ealth, the same 
shall not be set aside for informality, if it appear that the process has issued in the 
name of the commonwealth against the defendants for moneys owing or due, or for 
damages by tresspass or otherwise, as the case may be, that said process was served 
on the defendant by the proper officer, and in due time; nor any plaintiff nonsuited 
for informality in any statement or declaration filed, or by reason of any informality 
in entering a plea, but when in the opinion of the Court, such informality will affect 
the merits of the cause in controversy, the plaintiff shall be permitted to amend his 
declaration or statement, and the defendant may alter his plea or defence on or before 
the trial of the cause.” 

This act has been liberally construed, and has been applied to actions real, personal 
and mixed, and to penal, as w'ell as civil actions. It is true that the Supreme Court 
in the case of Com. vs. Gill, 3 Wharton, 236, seemed to consider it doubtful whether 
the act of 1806 applied to cases of quo warranto, and allowed the defendants to with¬ 
draw their answer, and file a plea in lieu of it under the general poweis of the Court. 
If the question were now presented to them under the act of 1 836, relating to. wr its of 
quo warranto and mandamus, I cannot but think that any doubt they might nave would 
soon be dispelled. That act provides a writ, directs how it shall be served; says that 
the defendant shall answer, plead or demur to the suggestion, and, in sr oi t, makes it 
entirely a civil suit. The latter part of the 9th section moreover adds, that the Court, 
shall make such orders from time to time in respect to such pleading as shall expedite 


XVI 


the decision of the cause consistently with reasonable convenience to the parties. 
Under no construction that could be given to the act of 1806, could it, in my opinion, 
be made to embrace a proceeding of the character now before us. 

The inherent power of the Court to make an amendment outside of the act of 1806, 
is reducible to no certain rule, but depends on the mere discretion of the Court. This 
power, great and dangerous as it is, has been sparingly used, and none of the cases in 
which it has been exercised, present features at all resembling the case now under 
consideration. In Benner vs. Frey, 2 Binney 366, a habeas corpus, removing a cause 
from the Common Pleas to the Supreme Court,Was amended by the praecipe. A 
declaration in assumpsit was amended after verdict by altering the day on which the 
promise was laid in Baily vs. Musgrave, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 319. Ordroneaux vs. Brady, 
6 Serg. & Kawle, 510, the time of the assumpsit was changed after verdict from 1819 
to 1818. In Burk vs. Huber, 2 Watts, 306, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the 
declaration after a judgment in demurrer against him. All these cases, too, presented 
special circumstances which made it incumbent on the Court to allow the amend¬ 
ments. And here, let me ask, where are the amendments to end ? If the case be 
referred to an examiner to take proofs, amendments may be made to meet the exi¬ 
gencies of the particular case after all the witnesses are heard, and thus instead of 
proofs to sustain the specification, we shall have amended specifications to suit the 
proofs. If a case be referred to a jury under a disputed state of facts, shall amend¬ 
ments be allowed during the trial, or after the counsel have summoned up the evidence. 
But even, were this amendment a mere matter of discretion, I think I have conclu¬ 
sively shown in a former part of this opinion, that considerations of great public 
policy, consistency of decision—one of the “primary virtues of a judicial tribunal,” 
according to Judge Parsons, in the case of Carpenter all forbid the amendments n6w 
prayed for. 

In England, a class of cases has been decided bearing a strong analogy to the one 
now under consideration, which, in my opinion, conclusively settles this case, both on 
reason and authority. One of the counsel for petitioners has told us that this proceed¬ 
ing was a substitute for a quo warranto, and certainly it would not be requiring too 
much to make them conform to the same rules that-the English .courts have adopted, 
when they require that the affidavits made in support of an application for an informa¬ 
tion in the nature of a quo warranto should be complete and sufficient in every respect 
in the first instance, and that if the affidavits omit to state some material fact, the 
Court will not give leave to amend it. This rule has been rigidly adhered to. In the 
case of Rex vs. Barzey and others, 4 Maule and Selwyn, 253, where the application 
suggested that the defendants were elected contrary to the provisions of a particular 
charter, but the affidavits omitted to state that the charter was accepted, or that the 
usage had been in conformity to the charter, the Court determined that the affidavit 
was ill for admitting so to state, and refused leave to amend it, saying that it “ would 
be a dangerous precedent.” Similar doctrine is held in the cases of Reg. vs. The In¬ 
habitants of Barton, 9 Dowling, 1021; Saunderson vs. Wesley, 8 Dowling, 652; Reg. 
vs. Harland, 8 Dowling, 323; Ex parte Halseham, 1 Dowling N. S. 792; Reg. vs. 
The Manchester and Leeds Railway Company, 8 Adolphus & Ellis, 413; Rex. vs. 
Orde, 8 Adolphus & Ellis, 420, note. 

In the case of Regina vs. The Inhabitants of Barton, the Court of Queen’s Bench 
says • “ The rule is express, that a party who has a full opportunity of bringing his 
case before the Court, must do so in the first instance. If he neglects the means of 
doing so, he cannot be allowed to come again and put the other party to the trouble 
and expense of a second attendance.” Lord Tenterden carried this doctrine so far as 
to refuse to entertain a second application, although the renewed application was made 
upon affidavits explaining and contradicting those upon which the former rule was 
discharged, 8 Adolphus & Ellis, 420, and Lord Denman in the case of the King vs. 
Eve & Parlby, 5 Adolphus & Ellis, 780, where an application for a criminal informa¬ 
tion had been defeated by perjury, only granted a renewed application under the 
special circumstances of the case. This rule is general and universal in its applica¬ 
tion, and the only exception to it is where the affidavits were defective in their title 
or in the jurat, and to this extent I would go, and no further. Reg Jones 8 

Dowling, 307; Shaw vs. Perkin, 1 Dowling, N. S. 307. This is the rule and the 
doctrine; doctrine sanctioned by time, authority and great experience, which I would 
apply in a class of cases like the present, and thus preserve our own consistency, and 
save the community from a flood of evils. 

Independently of a!! this, there is another, in my opinion, fatal objection to this 
application. To the original complaint there is appended the names of thirty-three 
citizens, who represent themselves to be qualified electors of this county. To the 


XVII 

application to amend, but twenty-one of these citizens have attached their names. 
The act of 1839 requires that the complaint shall be preferred by at least twenty 
qualified electors, but if more than twenty sign it, it is needless for me to say that 
they all become parties to the proceedings, and are all and every of them liable to the 
costs, it the Court should certify that the complaint was without probable cause. The 
twelve citizens whose names are not to the petition for amendment, have for aught 
we know, abandoned their complaint; and is it right or just that we should, without 
their participation or consent, lorce them to continue a proceeding which may subject 
them to heavy costs. But there is another more fatal objection to it. It is a change 
of parties—a doctrine without a precedent to support it. That parties cannot be 
changed, it is only necessary for me to refer to Williams vs. Tearney, 8 Serg. and 
Rawle, 53; Chamberlain vs. Hite, 5 Watts, 373; Smith vs. Smith, 5 Barr. 266; 
Nott vs. Swineford, 6 Barr, 387. 


THE OPINION OF JUDGE KELLEY. 


The rules that govern this Court in the matter of contested elections under the pro 
visions of the act of July 2d, 1839, were adopted while I was yet at the bar.—They 
are stringent; but no less wise and salutary than stringent. They require the parties 
complaining of an undue election or false return of an officer, to set forth in their peti¬ 
tion not only the fact of fraud or mistake, but the nature and extent of the alleged 
fraud or mistake; and to aver and set forth that it changed the result of the election. 
The operation of these rules secures to the party whose return is contested notice of 
the allegations he is to meet, and enables the court to prevent much expensive, ex¬ 
citing and fruitless litigation. I therefore concurred in the application of them to 
Carpenter’s, the only other election case in the hearing of which I have participated. 

The original petition filed in the case now under consideration, did not meet the 
requirements of these rules. It did not contain all the essential material facts and 
averments; and had the case proceeded to argument and judgment upon it as it was 
filed, the motion, to quash must have been so sustained. But before the argument of 
that motion, the complainants prayed leave to amend their petition by inserting the 
omitted material facts and averments. The right to amend such a petition is denied 
by the respondent, and the question is thus presented for our decisiou. It is not a 
new question, although it has never been expressly decided. During the progress of 
the argument, on the motion to quash the petition filed in the matter of the contested 
election of County Treasurer in October, 1845, the court intimated the propriety of 
amending the petition. In the Penn District case, in the spring of 1850, a similar 
intimation was given by the Court. It was evidently the opinion of the judges who 
heard and determined those cases that such petitions are amendable. 

The Act of Assembly which gives us jurisdiction of such cases directs us to proceed 
upon the merits, and determine finally according to the laws of the Commonwealth. 
Compliance with these directions requires the allowance of this amendment; for if it 
be not allowed, the merits of this case cannot be ascertained. The laws of the Com¬ 
monwealth require us to permit it. The acts of 1806 and 1846 provide most fully 
for the trial of all “ suits” upon the merits by enabling the parties to amend at any 
stage of the case. I do not think the present case is affected by those acts. They 
are alluded to only to exhibit the spirit of our legislation on this subject. Nor can 
we, as the decisions of this court are final in such cases, look to the reports of the 
Supreme Court of the State for an express decision of the point. Those reports are, 
however, replete with decisions of questions closely analogous to the one now under 
consideration, and they all exhibit the steady effort of that court to make the law a 
simple and direct avenue to justice by the removal of technical impediments. Judge 
Parsons has cited many of the opinions of that court in cases more or less analogous to 
this; but my judgment on this point would be concluded, had we no others than 
Comm. vs. Gill, 3d Wharton, 228. West vs. Simmons, 2 Wharton, 281, and Gilles¬ 
pie vs. Smith, 1st Harris 65. If additional authority were needed, it might be found 
in Wike vs. Likener, 1st Rawle, 189—a case cited in support of the position that we 


C 



XVlll 


are prohibited the exercise of the power of amendment. The opinion of the Court in 
that case was delivered by Chief Justice Gibson. It was a motion to quash a writ of 
error. The writ was quashed on the ground that the Act of Assembly provided that 
an appeal might be taken in every case of demurrer, special verdict, case stated, 
point reversed, motion in arrest of judgment, or for a new trial, or to set aside a judgment, 
discontinuance on nonpros ; and was therefore more extensively remedial than even 
the writ of error; and that remedies provided by Act of Assembly should be used 
in exclusion ef remedies at common law. Yet, even in that case, the Chief Justice 
says that if it could be shown that there was an error for which the appeal afforded 
no remedy, the Court would be bound to allow the writ for its special correction. 
Believing it to be sustained by the entire current of authorities to the American and 
English, and in accordance with the previously expressed opinion of this Court, I 
concur in the judgment pronounced by Judge Parsons. Leave to amend must be 
granted. 


• C*- 


The case came on for hearing, February 12th, 1851, before Judges 
King, Campbell and Kelley. 

Counsel for the Contestants — W. M. Meredith, Henry J. Williams, 
D. P. Brown, St. George T. Campbell and W. B. Mann. 

Counsel for the Respondent— h M. Read, W. L. Hirst, Robert 
Tyler and H. J. Horn. 



IN THE MATTER 


OF 


The Contested Election of District Attorney. 


BEFORE JUDGES KING, CAMPBELL AND KELLEY. 


February 12, 1851. 

Mr. St. Geo. T. Campbell. —“ Without troubling the Court with a formal 
opening, I will state that we shall proceed to give evidence upon the 
third, fourth, fifth and sixth specifications.” 

Mr. Wm. L. Hirst. — “ There is only one difficulty in the way of that, 
which is, that the fifth has been struck out by order of Court. In the 
sixth the parties have omitted to furnish to us the reasons for the supposed 
disqualifications of the electors referred to in the list annexed to the com¬ 
plaint.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“For the present, to relieve us of all difficulty, I will 
confine myself to the third specification.” 

King, P. J.— “ We will direct that the specifications adjudicated by the 
Court be admissible to proof successively.” 

Mr. Campbell reads the third specification. 

John C. Dobleman , affirmed. —“ I am one of the County Commissioners. 
I have with me the assessment list signed by the Assessor, for the Second 
Ward, Moyamensing. John McFall is the regular Assessor. [The list 
given in evidence.] The extra assessment list is contained in the same 
book.” 

Alderman James W. Fletcher , sworn. —“ I am the Alderman of the Second 
Ward, Moyamensing. The ballot boxes of the election of last Fall were 
brought to my house, at two or three o’clock. [Objected to by Mr. Hirst.] 
I only delivered up one of the ballot boxes into the hands of the Sheriff 
who was in the company of Mr. Thos. B. Towne. I have all the other 
boxes. I have not the large box here. This subpoena directed me to bring 
the tally papers, and I dont know which box they were in, and I did’nt 
know whether I could break open the boxes.” Ordered to bring all the 
boxes. 

George Corson , sworn. —“ I served this subpoena on George C. Carpenter 
on yesterday morning.” • 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I desire now to give in evidence the tally list of the 
votes polled in the Second Ward, Moyamensing, in the county of Philadel¬ 
phia, on Tuesday, Oct’r 8th, 1850, at the house of John McFall, for County 
Officers. Horn R. Kneass, it sets forth, received 1097 votes, William B. 
Reed 94, W. R. Dickerson 31,and Peter A. Browne 1. I now give in evi* 
dencethe list of voters from the Prothonatary’s office, beginning at No. 1, 




2 


with the name of Evans, and going on regularly to 1223, and ending with 
the name of David Abrams. My next piece of evidence in order will be 
certain papers in Alderman Fletcher’s possession. I will leave them for 
the present and go on to some parole testimony. I shall desire several 
papers from him. I want the alphabetical list of voters, which should be 
in the box.” 

Benjamin M. Shain,sworn .—I reside in Second Ward, Moyamensing. 

I voted at the election in October last, at, I think, about 2 o’clock.” No. 
483 on the list of voters. 

J. D. George , affirmed.—• <i I reside in Ninth street above Shippen. I 
voted where the election was. I dont remember exactly the street. I 
can’t remember at whose house it was. I voted at the proper place, be¬ 
tween 3 and 4 o’clock.” No. 493. 

Jacob Bigonet , sworn. — U I live in Tenth street above Fitzwater. I 
live in Second Ward, Moyamensing, and voted at the last general election 
at about 5 o’clock ; or somewhere in that neighborhood.” No. 562. 

John C. Montgomery , sworn. — u I lived in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at the last general election, and voted to the best of my recollection between 
5 and 6 o’clock.” No. 602. 

Charles J. Shain , sworn. —“ I resided in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at the last general election, and voted there between 6 and 7 o’clock; nearer 
7, perhaps.” No. 681. 

Edward Woods , sworn. —“ I reside in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the 
last general election I voted there, and as near as I can guess at a quarter 
before 7 o’clock; five minutes either way.” No. 716. 

Cross-examined. —“ It was about that time as near as I can guess; it 
was dusk.” 

Wm. Landon , sworn. — “ I reside in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I 
voted at the last election at about twenty minutes of 10 o’clock. It may 
be nigher to 10 than twenty minutes, but I say twenty minutes. After I 
voted I stopped a few minutes and turned to look if any one was there. 
I thought the polls closed. I stopped a few minutes and went home. I 
live one door from Tenth and Fitzwater streets; it would take about five 
minutes to walk there. The clock struck ten before I reached home, and 
just as I was going up stairs I heard my own clock strike. Nobody was 
present to vote when I voted, and I was not obstructed when I offered my 
vote at the window. When I first went there, there was a great many, 
and I suppose it was an hour after I got a ticket before I voted.” No. 878. 

Cross-Examined. — “ I was not delayed by the crowd of voters, but by 
walking about there. When I first went down there was some voting, but 
I remained an hour after that, but when I went to vote there was none at 
all nor after that, for I stopped some time after I voted, and saw none at 
all. My fancy did’nt lead me to vote when I first got there. I was alone 
and saw no one to cry out a Whig ticket. When I went first, I found but 
one man with a Whig ticket. I suppose it was about a quarter of 9 
o’clock when I went there. When I first went I saw the man who gave 
me the ticket. I know he is a Whig. He said “ who would take a Whig 
ticket?” I took it in the dark for fear I might offend the people and dis¬ 
please myself. I did’nt know but I might get a knock. I took it under 
the apprehension of personal harm. It was close to 9 o’clock when I 
took that ticket, it might be a quarter of nine. I remained till it was quite 


3 


dark. My ideas did’nt lead me to vote when I got the ticket. I thought 
to look about me ; there was a good many people voting when I went down 
to the polls. They did’nt continue to vote till I voted ; as I could see, there 
was none at the polls to vote when I voted, and there were none for 3 or 
4 minutes afterwards.” 

Robert Murray. —Called to prove the closing of the polls at 10 o’clock. 
Objected to by Mr. Hirst as being one of the petitioners. It was con¬ 
ceded that the polls were closed at ten and the witness was withdrawn 
for the present. 

John H. Eckey , sworn .—“ I reside in 2d ward, Moyamensing. I voted 
at the late election at about 3| or 4 o’clock in the afternoon.” No. 509. 

Richard George , sworn .—“ I reside in 2d ward, Moyamensing, and 
voted at the last election at about 2 o’clock, as near as I can recollect.” 
No. 290. 

[Here Alderman Fletcher and the Sheriff brought in the boxes, which 
were opened.] 

Mr. Hirst .—“ I find that the oaths of the officers are found in this box, 
notwithstanding it is sworn that they were never given.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ We will discuss that at another time. I am now in 
search of the list of voters which is required by the 74th section of the 
Act of Assembly to be deposited in the ballot boxes.” [The list not found.] 

George Ash , sworn. —“ I reside in 2d ward, Moyamensing, and voted 
at the last general election, as near as I can remember, at ten or fifteen 
minutes past 9 o’clock in the evening.” No. 845. 

Robert H. Gillis , sworn. —“ In October last I resided in the Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, in Stewart street. I had a son named Alexander 
Gillis.” 

Mr, Hirst. “ What is the object of this V 9 

Mr. Campbell. —“At No. 907, on the list of voters, is put down the 
name of Alexander Gillis as having voted. I propose to prove he was 
killed on the nineteenth of June—this gentleman’s son, and that he knows 
of no other person of that name.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I think this is totally insufficient proof—there may have 
been a hundred Alexander Gillises.” 

Judge King. —“I think this is admissible as an item of evidence.” 

Witness —“ My son lived with me in my house in Stewart street, off 
Fitzwater, in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I have lived in that ward for 
a number of years. He died on the 17th of June, 1849, at about 12 
o’clock. I have had my home in Moyamensing for about ten years. I 
don’t know of any other man of that name in the City or County of 
Philadelphia. I think I would have known if there was any. It is a 
scarce name.” No. 907. 

Wm. Taylor , /r., sworn. —“ I am a bricklayer, and reside at Seventh 
and Paul, in the district of Southwark. I did live in Moyamensing. I 
left there on the sixth of July last. I lived in Fitzwater street, between 
Eighth and Ninth, in the Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Mr. Campbell refers the court to the Assessor’s list for this name. On 
the list of voters it is No. 939. 


4 


Mr. Hirst objects to this on the ground that the name referred to is 
not in the specification filed. The question was argued by Mr. Hirst and 
Mr. Campbell. 

Judge King. —“The opinion of the majority of the Court is that the 
witness can be proceeded with.” 

Judge Campbell. —“I differ with the majority of the Court in this 
point. I think it is entirely too general. It has been ruled by this Court 
on previous occasions to confine the parties to the names inserted in the 
specifications.” 

Judge King. —“I did not deem it necessary to assign any reasons, but 
perhaps it is proper I should do it. First, I am of opinion that the list 
appended is a pure supererogation. All that the act demands is a state¬ 
ment of causes adequate in themselves, if proved to be true, to invalidate 
the election. This petition, as amended, contains statements according 
to the opinion of the majority of this court, which, if established, are 
adequate to invalidate the election. The petitioners have thought proper 
to append specifications, but have appended them in such a manner that, 
if required, they would be null of themselves. It is utterly vague and 
insufficient in itself, and therefore if a specification were demanded, that 
would be inadequate on its face. It is no more than an enumeration of 
proposed proofs. We are to remember, too, what are the duties we are 
now called upon to perform. The Act of Assembly declares that we 
shall execute the duty with all the powers and in the manner of a Com¬ 
mittee of the Legislature investigating an election, and having this power 
we should throw no obstacle in the way of the discovery of fraud. 

Judge Kelley. —“The question appears to me so simple that I don’t 
see how there can be two opinions respecting it. The specification states 
that 243 votes and upwards were fraudulently returned; that the names 
and list of numbers were wrongfully added, and that a portion of the names 
so added will appear on schedule A. I cannot see how this objection 
comes up while they confine themselves to the 243 mentioned ; until the 
244th comes I can see no plausible objection to offering and receiving wit¬ 
nesses on this point.” 

Witness. —“ I did not vote in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the elec¬ 
tion of October last.” No. 939. 

Wm. Taylor , Sr., sworn. —“ I reside at my own place in Southwark. I 
lived in Moyamensing, but left before the last election. I am a brick 
layer. I did live in Catharine street, below Tenth, Moyamensing. I did 
not vote in Moyamensing at the last general election.” No. 940. 

Cross-examined. —“ I was subpoenaed to come here by a gentleman 
named Taylor. He said he had a subpoena for me to come here. He said 
nothing else in particular.” 

Question .—“ Has any threat or inducement been held out to you to say 
what you have said?” 

Witness. —“ No, sir, by no one—I never take any.” 

Wesley Mann, sworn. —“I formerly lived in Second Ward, Moyamen- 
sing, at the N. E. corner of Ninth and Shippen streets. I don’t know that 
I was assessed there. I think it was in March, 1850,1 left Moyamensing. 
I did not vote in Moyamensing at the last election. I live now in Fourth 


5 


Ward, Northern Liberties.” [No. 956 on the list.] ££ I never heard of 
any Wesley Mann besides myself.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ On the assessor’s list is Wesley Mann, gent., Ninth 
street, above Shippen.” 

Benjamin Paullin , (deaf and dumb,) sworn , and testifies in writing .— 
“I live at No. 4 Flour street. 1 didn’t vote at the last election I am sure. 
I don’t know other name as my name. I am sure to say my name was 
forged. I am a tailor.” Mr. Campbell refers the Court to his name on 
the assessor’s list and on the list of voters, at No. 975. 

Garret Ruth , affirmed. —“Hive in George street, above Thirteenth, in 
the city of Philadelphia. I formerly lived in Moyamensing in Tenth st., 
below Fitzwater, Second Ward, Moyamensing. I left there on the 24th of 
April, 1850. I serve the Ledger for one thing, am engaged in music for 
another, and am collector of bills. I was a cordwainer. I don’t know of 
any other man of my name who resides in Second Ward, Moyamensing. 
I didn’t vote there at the election in 1850.” 

Mr. Campbell refers the Court to his name on the assessor’s list, and on 
the list of voters, No. 977. 

Rev. Richard S. Trapier, sworn. —“ I formerly resided in Tenth street, 
below South. I don’t know which ward it was in. I am sure there is 
no other Doctor of Divinity of my name in the State. I reside now at 
No. 31 Clinton street. I did not vote in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last election. I left Moyamensing on the 19th of June, 1850.” 

Mr. Campbell refers the Court to his name in the assessor’s list, and on 
the list of voters, No. 976. 

Mr. Hirst .—“ It is Trapper on the list.” 

Witness. —“ My name was spelt wrong in that way and I told them to 
correct it. They had me down ££ Trapper” the year before ; and also at 
the Lombard street poll this time.” 

Mr. Campbell. — ££ The next name is Violet Primrose. I will prove 
presently that Mr. Primrose is now absent from the city, and his evidence 
was taken by commission in Mobile.” 


DEPOSITION OF VIOLET PRIMROSE. 

Interrogatory first. —On the second Tuesday of October, A. D., 1850, 
where did you reside, and what was your business and occupation ? State 
particularly the precise residence you then occupied, and how long you 
had there resided, and what real estate, if any, you owned in the Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, or elsewhere in the City and County of Phila¬ 
delphia ? 

Answer to the first interrogatory. —On the second Tuesday of October, 
1S50,1 resided on the West side of Tenth street, one door below the 
corner of Cedar street, in the County of Philadelphia, and have resided at 
the same place for the last six years, with the exception ot an absence of 
a few months in the winter and spring of 1849—50. I pay taxes and 
own real estate in the Second Ward, Moyamensing, to the value of three 
thousand dollars, and in the Fourth and Fifth Wards, of the same place, 
to the value of dollars. 


6 


Second Interrogatory. —Were you a qualified elector of the Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, on that day—having paid a State or County tax 
within two years, and resided at least ten days within the said Ward ? 

To the Second Interrogatory .—I was a qualified elector of the Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, on the said second Tuesday of October, 1850, having 
paid a State and County tax within two years, and resided at least ten 
days before said second Tuesday of October, 1850, within the Ward. 

Interrogatory third. —Did you or not at the said general election on 
the second Tuesday of October, A. D. 1850, vote in the said Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, or any where else in the said City or County of 
Philadelphia ? 

Answer to third Interrogatory. —I did not vote at the general election 
on the second Tuesday of October, 1850, either in the said Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, or anywhere else in the City or County of Philadelphia. 

Interrogatory fourth. —Do you know or have you ever heard of any 
other person of your name in the said Second Ward, Moyamensing, or 
anywhere else in the City or County of Philadelphia, at any time now 
or heretofore ? 

Answer to fourth Interrogatory. —I do not know nor have I ever heard 
of any other person of my name in said Second Ward, Moyamensing, or 
any where else, at any time, now or heretofore. 

Interrogatory fifth. —Do you know any other matter or thing material 
to the petitioners in the above case 1 If you do, state the same as if 
particularly interrogated thereto. 

Answer to fifth Interrogatory. —I am not aware that I know of any 
other matter or thing material to the petitioners. 

Cross Interrogatories. 

Interrogatory first. —Please state at what period, and for how long, 
and where, you have ever resided in the City or County of Philadelphia? 
And at what places, other than Philadelphia, have you, at any time, 
resided, and for how long, and where? 

Answer to First Cross-Interrogatory. —I have resided in the city of 
Philadelphia since 1802, with the exception of three years in the State of 
Delaware, three years in the State of Maryland, and a few months occa¬ 
sional absence in other places. But for the last six years my residence 
has been as stated in my answer to the first direct interrogatory. 

Cross Interrogatory second. —Please state what business or occupation 
you followed at the places and times inquired of in the preceding cross 
interrogatory ? 

Answer to the second cross interrogatory. —My business has been that 
of a saddler in Philadelphia, farming in Maryland, and I was in no business 
in Delaware. 

Cross Interrogatory third. —If you shall answer the second interrogatory 
in chief in the negative, and the third in the affirmative, please state for 
whom you voted as District Attorney of the county of Philadelphia, at 
the election inquired of? 

Answer to Cross Interrogatory third. —I did not vote for any one at the 
election referred to. 


7 


Mr. Campbell .—« I now refer your honor to the Assessor’s list—< Violet 
Primrose, saddler, Tenth, above Shippen.’ Also to the list of voters, 
No. 978.” 

James Wiley , sworn .—“ I am an iron moulder. I reside in Milton* 
above Eleventh, in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I did not vote at the 
last election.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“In the Assessor’s list is c James Wiley, moulder, 
Milton, below Eleventh,’ and on the list of voters, No. 1000, is James 
Wiley.” 

Timothy S . Arthur , sworn. —“ I reside in Tenth, below Shippen, Se¬ 
cond Ward, Moyamensing. I have resided there for three years. I am 
a publisher and editor. I did not vote at the last election in October. I 
do not know of any other person of my name in that Ward. I have 
never heard of any other of that name.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“I refer your Honor to the Assessor’s list, and to the 
list of voters No. 1007.” 

Matthew Thompson , sworn. —“ I reside at the N. E. corner of Tenth 
and Catharine. I voted at the last election in Second Ward, Moyamen- 
ssng, at about 7-i- o’clock.” No. 739. 

Henry Barton, sworn. —“I live nowin the Third Ward, Moyamen¬ 
sing, in South, above Eleventh. I don’t know of any other person of my 
name in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I voted in Third Ward, Moya¬ 
mensing, at the last election, and not in the Second Ward. I did live in 
the Second Ward ten years ago.” No. 1093 on list of voters. 

John Buddy , sworn .—“ I am a type founder. I reside in Catharine 
street, below Ninth, in Second Ward, Mo 3 r amensing. I voted at the 
election in October last, between the hours of twelve and half past one 
o’clock. I don’t know of any other John Duddy in the ward. I only 
voted once.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“I refer your honor to No. 303 on the list of voters, 
in the first place, and to 1147 in the second place ; John Duddy in both.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“I would suggest to the counsel that he has made an 
error. 303 is Patrick McGee. In the margin is a name evidently in¬ 
tended for something else.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“If your honor will look at the list, you will find 303 
there, and on the margin is John Duddy’s name. I don’t think 303 is 
intended for Patrick McGee, and there is no 300.” 

Judge King.— “It goes from 299 to 301.” 

James Ashmun, sworn. —“I am a son-in-law of Anthony Elton. He 
lived in Hubbell street, Second Ward, Moyamensing. He has been dead 
between nine and ten years. That may be a mistake there. I have un¬ 
derstood there is another Anthony Elton lives in the Ward. Mr. Murray 
knows where he lives; he was the one who I understood said there was 
another one. I don’t know of any other myself. I know of none without 
it is my child.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I refer to John Murray. I received information 
from some one about the Hall that John Murray knew of another Anthony 
Elton.” 


8 


William A. Offerman , sworn. — tc I reside now in Newmarket Ward. I 
know one Frederick Offerman. He is my father. He is not dead that I 
know of j he has gone away; I can’t say where he has gone to. He left 
six years ago. When he left he lived in Second Ward, Moyamensing, in 
Eighth street below South. He was not here in October last that I know 
of. I did’nt see him. I dont know of any Frederick Offerman in that 
Ward but my father.” No. 1156. 

Mr. Campbell. — c< I call your Honor’s attention at this time to 13 names 
upon the list, viz : 1065, Edward King , 1047, Samuel Merrick , 1079 Jacob 
Peters , 1145, William Wistar, 1160, George Morton A 

Mr. Tyler. —“ What do you intend to prove by these ?” 

Mr. Campbell. —“I first call attention to these names, and I shall pre¬ 
sently call the most experienced inhabitants of the Ward, that I can find, 
to show that no such persons are there or are to be found. The next 
name is Lea Bunker , 1181, Jacob Frick , 1182, JohnM. Gill , 1184, Jacob 
Reese , 1186, Jacob Mayland , 1187, Jacob Lex , 1194, William Bradford , 
1213, Edward Parrish. 

William F. Primrose , sworn. —“ I am a son of Violet Primrose. He is 
absent from the city. His residence is in Tenth street, next door to the 
corner of South.” 

Cross-examined. —“ He was here on the day of the election. He did 
not vote. He was busy at the store, and in the evening it was too late.” 

Richard Harod , sworn. —“ I live in Ninth street near Carpenter. I am 
a cordwainer by trade. I lived in Carpenter street above Eighth, here¬ 
tofore. I didn’t vote at the election in October last. I was not able to 
be out of the house.” 

Mr. Campbell —Refers to the Assessor’s list for his name, and to the 
list of voters, 1004. 

Cross-examined. —“ I don’t know of any one in the city or county of 
my name. I never heard of any of my name.” 

Charles Phillips , sworn. —“ lama plasterer. I reside in Flower street 
below Catharine. I did not vote at the last election, in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing. I live on the east side of the street.” 

Mr. Campbell refers the Court to his name on the Assessor’s list, and on 
the list of voters, No. 960. 

James Agnew, sworn. —“ I reside in Milton street, between Tenth and 
Eleventh. I am a weaver. I did not vote at the last election. I don’t 
know of any other man of my name.” 

The Court is referred to his name on the Assessor’s list, and on the list 
of voters, No. 933. 

Felix Bradley , sworn.— “ I reside in Milton street, between Tenth and 
Eleventh. I am a cordwainer. I didn’t vote at the last election. I don’t 
know of any other man of my name.” 

His name is on the assessor’s list and on list of voters, No. 937. 

Jacob Knox. —“ I reside in Hubbell street, No. 2. It is above Catha¬ 
rine. I am a printer. I didn’t vote at the last election in Moyamensing. 

I have a son who is about 22 or 23 years old. He didn’t vote at the last 


9 


election—he was not here. Except myself and son I don’t know of any 
of that name.” 

His name is on the assessor’s list, and on the list of voters, it is No. 967. 

James Tracey , sworn. — u I reside in Tenth street. I formerly resided 
in Carpenter street, below Eleventh. I have been living in Tenth street 
since June last. I am a weaver. I didn’t vote at the last election. I 
saw my name over a door in Market street. I don’t know of anybody of 
that name in that ward.” 

His name on the assessor’s list and list of voters, No. 959. 

Moses Vanderslice , sworn. — u I reside in Fifth street, between Gas- 
kill and Lombard. I lived in Moyamensing for 12 or 13 years. I keep 
a store there in South street, above Fifth, that is in the first ward. I had 
a store in South street, above Seventh. I did not vote in the Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, at the last election. I don’t know of any other 
person of my name.” 

Cross-examined. —“I moved from South street, in February, 1850.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“On the assessor’s list his name is M. J. Vanderslice, 
and No. 945 on the list of voters is John M. Vanderslice.” 

Andrew Miller , affirmed. —“ I reside in Moyamensing and have about 
five years, and am to some extent familiar with the inhabitants of that dis¬ 
trict and their residences.” 

Question by Mr. Campbell. —“ Look at this copy of the list of voters, 
beginning at 907 and running out, and tell me if any names on that list 
you recognize, and how many ?” 

Witness. —“ Mr. Campbell sent me this list on Friday night last, re¬ 
questing me to examine it and I did so, and I have marked 4 or 5 names 
as those whom I knew personally and I took it to him on Saturday night. 
I marked Roger McCloskey 913, Michael Porter 949, Violet Primrose 978. 
I have not a personal acquaintance with him, but know him as living 
there and suppose him to be a voter. I knew C. A. Masson No. 1105, but 
not as living in the Disirict. I was familiar with a person of that name. 
He is a conveyancer—he may reside in the district. Frederick Offerman 
1156, I believe, had resided on the east side of Eighth street, below Bed¬ 
ford, and those are all the names I believe that I marked on that list.” 

Cross-examined. — Question. —“ What are the boundaries of Second 
Ward, Moyamensing ?” 

Answer. —“ Seventh street on the east, Eleventh street on the west, 
Carpenter on the south, and Cedar on the north. I am in the city nearly 
all of the time, except in the evening. I live in the First Ward, Moya¬ 
mensing.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ With your Honor’s permission, I would like to give 
a result of figures that it may be verified by our friends on the other side. 
Assessed 1516 : extra and regular assessment 1560. Of those, 623 of the 
same name voted. The difference between the two is 837, not voting 
whose names are on the Assessor’s list. There were 1223 on the window 
list of voters. Deducting 623, on the Assessor’s list and the balance is 600.” 

J. C. Montgomery , recalled . —“ I voted at the last general election. I 
voted for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

2 


10 


Cross examined. — " I had a supply of tickets—some were left at my 
door and others I got on the ground. I can’t say if the ticket I voted 
was one left at the door or on the ground, but I can swear positively that 
I voted for W. B. Reed, for I am too old a stager not to examine my 
ticket before I vote. I examined every name on the ticket. I voted 
the Whig ticket, without scratching. I can swear I didn’t scratch out 
the name of Mr. Reed.” 

The Rev. Henry E. Montgomery , sworn. —“ I voted at the election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross examined. —“ I think I got my ticket on the ground ; I am sure 
I did, but I don’t know who from. I didn’t vote at the same time my 
father did. I went by myself to the polls, and Mr. Ashton was kind 
enough to take me to the polls and they let me vote, being a clergyman, 
without waiting. I voted between twelve and half past one. There was 
quite a string of voters there. They were orderly. I can’t recollect 
from whom I got the ticket, but I opened it and looked at every ticket 
very narrowly.” 

John P. Montgomery , sworn. —“I voted at the election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, on the 8th of October, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I can’t specify the name of anybody who voted 
with me, but W. D. Barnes, who was behind me. There was a long list 
there. It was about a quarter before two o’clock. My impression is I 
got a ticket on the ground, but examined it carefully before voting. I 
reached home a short time before dinner hour, which is two o’clock.” 

John Hassen , sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I voted between 6 and 7 in the evening ; it may 
have been a little after 7; it was about that time. I got the ticket from 
James Kirkpatrick. I voted the Native American ticket because they 
wanted my civilization papers. I split my ticket, for I wanted to vote 
against Keyser. I turned round and saw Kirkpatrick, and I wanted a 
good Native American ticket, and I looked over the ticket and saw the 
name of W. B. Reed on it. I voted for Mr. Reed. It is very likely 
that the name was not at the head nor foot of the ticket. It might have 
been in the middle.” 

Question .—“ You didn’t vote that ticket then'?” Ticket shown him. 

Answer. —“I never saw that ticket before.” 

JoshuaS. Fletcher, affirmed.—" I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at the late general election, for W. B. Reed, for the office of District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I was on the ground a good deal during the day. 
I challenged votes at the window. 1 attempted to challenge, °but it did 
not appear to operate and I had to stop. I was there from about nine 
o’clock in the morning till about dusk. I suppose I attempted to chal¬ 
lenge a dozen times or so. I think I voted about nine o’clock in the 
morning.” 

John Kelley , sworn. —“I reside in Second Ward, Moyamensing, and I 
voted there at the last general election for W. B. Reed for °District 
Attorney.” 


11 


Cross-examined.— u 1 voted about one o’clock. I got the ticket on the 
ground. I took it to my office and opened and examined it. I scratched 
two names off the Commissioners’ ticket.” 

F. Jl. White , sworn.— u I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined.— u 1 got my ticket on the ground. I think Mr. 
Weatherby gave it to me. I had a number given me but I think I voted 
the one he gave me. I didn’t vote the entire ticket, I scratched some of 
the Commissioners. I scratched two I think.” 

Judge King — <( I don’t think the witness should be interrogated as to 
any votes except the particular one in question.” 

Witness .— a I didn’t scratch any name off the County ticket.” 

John T. V . Pole , sworn .— ic I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last general election, and voted, to the best of my knowledge, for W. 
B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined.— u I got my ticket from Mr. Fletcher. I didn’t exa¬ 
mine it, but took it for granted it was that ticket.” 

John Murray, Jr ,, sworn. —“I voted at the last general election in 
Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I didn’t scratch any ticket.” 

John M. Thomas , sworn. — £< I voted at the last general election in Se¬ 
cond Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — <c I did reside in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the 
time of the election. I voted between 12 and 2 o’clock. Think I got 
the ticket from Daniel Stewart. I examined it partly.” 

Francis Zerman , sworn. —“I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I examined my ticket, and scratched part of the 
County ticket. I scratched Mr. Vinyard off.” 

Joseph Murray, sworn. —“I voted at the last general election in Se¬ 
cond Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney” 

Cross-examined —“ I examined my ticket, and did not, to my recol¬ 
lection, scratch off any part of the County ticket.” 

Austin J. Montgomery , sworn .— C£ I voted at the late general election 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I examined my ticket, and didn’t scratch any part 
of the County ticket.” 

Richard Stotesbury , affirmed. —“ I voted at the late general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I examined my ticket and did’nt scratch off any 
part of the County ticket.” 

Joseph Sellers , sworn. — c< I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I examined my ticket and didn’t scratch off any 
part of the city and county ticket.” 


12 


Matthew Murray , sworn .— 44 1 voted at the last general election in Moy- 
amensing for W. B. Reed for District Attorne}'.” 

Cross-examined. — 44 1 lived in Ninth street, between Christian and Car¬ 
penter, with my father at that time. I am past 23 and I have paid a tax. 
My father’s name is Beauchamp Murray. I looked at my ticket and diun’t 
scratch off any part of the city and county ticket. I got it from my 
brother, Robert Murray.” 

Thos. Dean , sworn. — 44 1 voted at the last general election in the Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — 44 1 examined my ticket. I got it on the ground from 
JohnLanden. I believe he lives in that ward. I didn’t scratch off any 
part of the city and county ticket. I then lived in Ninth street, below 
Christian, and kept house.” 

George F. McCallmont, sworn. — 44 1 voted at the last general election 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — 44 1 examined my ticket and didn’t scratch any name 
from it.” 

Godfrey Dean, sworn. — 44 1 voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — 44 1 lived in Ninth street, below Christian; I kept 
house; it was above Carpenter. I examined my ticket and didn’t scratch 
off any part of it. I got it from Thos. Dean; he is not a relation of mine. 
He gave it to me on the ground between 3 and 4 o’clock. I put the ticket 
in as soon as I got my turn. I opened the ticket and examined it.” 

James Hamer, sworn. — 44 1 voted in the Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .— 44 1 lived in Carpenter, first door below Ninth. I am 
a weaver. I got my ticket on the ground from Robert Murray. I ex¬ 
amined it first and then voted it. W. B. Reed’s name was on it. I can 
read that much. It was on the ticket that I voted. I think it was about 
the middle of the ticket. [Ticket shown him.] I voted for W. B. Reed. 
I voted a ticket like that. I was subpoenaed to come here. I don’t know 
who by. Two gentlemen came to my house to fetch me. That is one 
of the men who subpoenaed me. [Points to a man.] They didn’t pay me 
for my attendance before hand.” 

Judge Campbell. — 44 Read the names on that ticket.” 

Witness reads them. 

Joseph S. Randall, sworn .— 44 1 voted at the last general election for 
W. B. Reed for District Attorney. I examined my ticket.” 

Wm . Flemming, sworn. — 44 1 voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed to the best of my recollection. I 
didn’t open the ticket. I got the general Whig ticket from Beauchamp 
Murray. I asked him if he had the ticket for W. B. Reed, and he said he 
didn’t keep any other by him.” 

% 

Samuel Tudor, affirmed .— 44 1 voted at the last general election for W. B. 
Reed for the office of District Attorney.” 

Thos. Nicholson, sworn. — 44 1 voted at the last election in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 


13 


Crvss-examined. —“I resided then in Clifton street, third door above 
Shippen. I keep house. I got my ticket on the ground. I looked at it. 
I examined the whole ticket. I don’t remember any more names in par¬ 
ticular than the name of W. B. Reed. I know it was the ticket. I believe 
the name of Isaac Shallcross was on the ticket. I voted the ticket entire, 
without scratching.” 

William Moran , sworn .— u I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for VV. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I got my ticket on the ground and examined it fully. 
I resided then at No. 50 Lebanon street. I now reside at No. 46.” 

Jos. Griner, sworn. —“I voted at the last election in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I reside at No. 2 Flower street. I got my ticket 
on the ground and examined it.” 

^ Samuel McFedridge , sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I got my ticket on the ground, and looked at it. I 
forget the names on it. Mr. Reed’s name was on the top. I live in 
Lebanon street, between Ninth and Tenth, and have, these ten years.” 

Ex-Alderman Jas. A. Campbell , affirmed. —“I voted at the last general 
election in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I did’nt get my ticket on the ground. I examined it.” 

Jos. Hutchinson , affirmed. —“ I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I did’nt get my ticket on the ground. I examined 
it. I reside at No. 225 South Ninth street.” 

Thomas Bond , sworn. — (i I voted at the last general election, in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — " I got my ticket on the ground. I examined it. 
Vineyard’s name was on beside Mr. Reed’s. I voted the whole ticket.” 

Robert E. Shultz , sworn. — u I voted at the last general election, in 
Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I examined my ticket.” 

Thos. Bell , sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I examined my ticket. I live at Tenth and Christian 
streets.” 

George Poppal , sworn.—" I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined “ I did’nt get my ticket on the ground. I got it from 
some neighbor of mine. I don’t know who. I first examined it before I 
voted it. ° I got my ticket in Ninth street by Clifton. I can read without 
spectacles.” 

W. Reed , sworn.—" I voted at the late general election, in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 


14 


Cross-examined. —“ I examined the ticket. I live in Tenth street below 
Shippen.” 

Charles H. White ) affirmed. —“ I voted at the late general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I examined my ticket.” 

Henry B. Tatem , sworn. —“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .— a I live at 196 South Ninth street. I examined my 
ticket.” 

B. W. Knight , affirmed. — c< I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for 
W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —I live at 87 Fitzwater street. I examined my ticket.” 

John Jarden , affirmed. — U I voted at the general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I live in Tenth street below South. I examined my 
ticket.” 

Jacob B. Goldy, sworn. — a I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W..B. Reed.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I examined my ticket. I reside at the southeast 
corner of Lebanon and Fitzwater streets.” 

W. C. Maxwell , affirmed. —“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —■“ I live at Fitzwater and Flower street. I examined 
my ticket.” 

Thos. B. English , affirmed. —“ I voted at the late general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I live in Tenth street below South. I examined 
my ticket.” 

William Bell , sworn. —“I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I live at Tenth and Christian. Am a carpenter. I 
live with my father. I have voted three or four times before. I voted 
on paying a tax. I got my ticket on the ground and I looked at it.” 

Lewis W. Evans , affirmed. —“ I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I lived at Tenth above Fitzwater. I got my ticket 
on the ground. I didn’t deposit it immediately in the window. I went 
away from the ground and deposited it a considerable time afterwards. 
I examined it.” 

Robert Mcllvain , sworn. — <e I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I lived in South between Seventh and Eighth 
streets. I got my ticket on the ground and examined it.” 

Wm. B. Perkins , sworn. — <C I voted in the Second Ward, Moya- 


15 


mensing, at the last October election for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I lived in Fitzwater below Eighth.” 

W. M. Davis, sworn. — ££ I voted at the late general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-Examined .— u I live in Tenth below Catharine. I kept house. 

I got my ticket at my shop in the morning, not on the ground. I ex¬ 
amined it.” 

John Murray, sworn. — ££ I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, to the best of my knowledge and belief for W. B. 
Reed.” 

Cross-Examined. —“I live at 173 south Ninth street. I didn’t ex¬ 
amine my ticket at the store. On the road down I took a casual glance 
at it. I can’t say what names I saw. I got the ticket from William 
Duffy.” 

Edmund Weatherby, sworn .— u I voted for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I gave tickets to others and in 
all those tickets W. B. Reed was designated for District Attorney.” 

Cross-Examined. —“I can’t remember what persons I gave them to. 
I live in Shippen near Tenth. I examined my ticket.” 

Robert E. Grimshaw, affirmed. — ££ I voted for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I examined my ticket before 
voting.” 

Cross-Examined — ££ I was on the ground part of the day challenging 
at the windows.” 

Alexander Kirkpatrick, affirmed. — ££ I voted at the late general election 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed.” 

Cross-examined. — ££ I lived in Shippen, above Tenth. I voted on pay¬ 
ing tax. I lived with my parents. I took my ticket with me and exa¬ 
mined it before I voted.” 

James Kirkpatrick, sworn. — ££ I voted at the late general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .— ££ Alexander is my brother. I lived with him. I 
didn’t vote on age. I examined my ticket.” 

Felix Helverty, sworn. — ££ I voted at the last general election for W. 
B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — ££ I lived at Tenth and Carpenter. I keep a house. 
I read my ticket distinctly before I voted it.” 

William Marsh, sworn. — ££ I voted at the late general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed.” 

Cross-examined. — ££ I examined my ticket.” 

Jacob Thomas, Jr ., affirmed. — ££ I voted for W. B. Reed at the late 
general election in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — ££ I lived in Eleventh, below South. I examined the 
ticket and kept a duplicate copy, which I have with me.” 


16 


Jacob Thomas, Sen., sworn .— i( I voted for VV. B. Reed in October 
last, in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I examined my ticket. I live in Eleventh, above 
Shippen.” 

Edward Jenkins, sworn. —“I voted at the late election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — U I resided in South, above Eighth. I examined 
my ticket.” 

Adjourned till to-morrow at 10 A. M. 


THURSDAY, February 13, 1851—10 o’clock, A. M. 

Jacob Bigonet, sworn .— (i I voted for Mr. Reed for District Attorney 
at the last general election, in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Jos. B. Haines, sworn. —“I was keeper in the county prison in Octo¬ 
ber last.” 

Question. —“ Was there not in the prison a man named Edward Virtue, 
there confined?” 

Answer. —“ To the best of my knowledge there was. This is the man. 
(Pointing to a man by his side.) He was confined in jail on the day of the 
last election.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I think I gave a statement of the case, which re¬ 
freshes my memory on the subject, within a week. I am certain upon 
the subject. I don’t recollect exactly when he came and went. I think 
he was discharged some time in December.” 

Edward Virtue, sworn .— u I am a laborer. I live in Morris street, be¬ 
low Fitzwater ; it is in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I did not vote at 
the last general election. I don’t know of any other man of my name but 
my son. He was in New York at the time of the election. He lives in 
Spring Garden now.” 

Cross-examined. — “ It is about six or seven weeks since he returned to 
Philadelphia. He lives in Spring Garden and works in Baldwin’s factory. 
He went to New York at the time I was in prison. My wife told me he 
had gone. I can’t say when she told me. She told me in about two 
months and I was not quite three there. I can’t tell whether she told me 
he had gone to New York in September or October. He was not at the 
election there, for if he had been here he would not have been in Moya¬ 
mensing. His wife and child live in Spring Garden. He is living there 
now. He has not lived with me better than a year.” 

Witness’s name is on the assessor’s list and on the window list, No. 942. 

Caleb Wisner, svjorn. —“ At the time of the election last October, I 
lived in First Ward, Moyamensing. I never lived in Second Ward, Moy¬ 
amensing. I did not vote in Second Ward in October last. I don’t know 
of any man of my name residing in Second Ward.” No. 985. 



17 


George Howard , sworn. —“I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

No. 198 on the window list. 

T/ios. H. Lobby sworn. “I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney. My father’s 
name is Benjamin Lobb. He died on the 21st or 22d of Nov., 1850. He 
voted after me and I saw his ticket.” 

Question. —“ Did you see for whom that ticket was deposited ?” 

Objected to by Mr. Hirst and Mr. J. M. Read, and argued by Messrs. 
Read and Brown. 

Mr. Campbell.-—“If" your honor please, before a decision, I will ask one 
or two questions.” 

Witness. —“ My father was feeble at the time of the election. I went 
to the polls and brought his ticket home to him, and he read the ticket 
and asked me if I would go up with him, and I went clear up to the win¬ 
dow and I saw him put the tickets in that I gave him.” 

Mr. Campbell proposes to ask the witness who his father voted for, and 
it is objected to by Mr. J. M. Read. 

Judge King. —“This is a question not of the adequacy of the testi¬ 
mony to prove the particular fact, to wit: whether the voter voted for 
W. B. Reed or otherwise, but it is the question of the competency of that 
testimony to establish that fact. In admitting this testimony, or in giving 
my voice for its admission, I do not say if he answers in the affirmative 
that it is adequate to prove the voter voted as he says, but I think it is 
competent testimony to be given to the Court. We occupy the position of a 
court and jury, or rather of a jury, and it is a principle perfectly familiar 
to every lawyer that what testimony is legal as tending to establish a 
fact, and its adequacy to the establishment of that fact are different 
matters. What is the object here? It is important to prove how a given 
individual voted. How is it to be proved? First, undoubtedly if he 
chooses to waive the protection given by the Constitution he may state it 
himself. But supposing it became of vital importance to prove how he 
voted; cannot that be established by clear and satisfactory testimony ? 
He may have an interest in protecting his ballot; another may have an 
interest in showing what that ballot was. We are to preserve his rights 
by protecting him in the secrecy the law contemplates, but we are 
equally bound to serve the general community or the individual by en¬ 
abling him to prove it. Where we resort to other testimony than the 
party himself, we go upon the principle of obtaining the best testimony 
the nature of the case will admit, and so in this case. I say therefore 
for these reasons, and for others that would suggest themselves to the 
mind of a professional man, that this question may be asked ; still, how¬ 
ever, not deciding that an affirmative answer is adequate proof of the 
fact j that is for the subsequent adjudication of the Court if this vote be¬ 
comes vital to the inquiry—then we can inquire into that. In adopting 
this course, I don’t understand myself as infringing upon the right of the 
citizen or the security of the secret ballot. I have the same estimate of 
that, that the learned and distinguished gentleman who has just addressed 
us contends for. It is vital to public liberty—vital that the ballot box 
shall express the true and uninfluenced mind of the citizen. But I 
should feel reluctant to throw a difficulty in the way of proving how the 
3 


18 


man did vote, in the event of his death by permitting, the best testimony 
that a party can give upon that subject being laid before the Court; and 
in so doing I cannot understand myself as infringing upon a right the in¬ 
violability of which I should be as ready to protect as any other indi¬ 
vidual.” 

Judge Campeell. —“ My mind is not clear upon this subject, and I will 
reserve it till it comes before the Court for final review.” 

Judge Kelley. — u I entirely concur in the opinion expressed by^ludge 
King. We give the widest privilege to the voter to disclose or not, and I 
think evidence of this kind maybe given, for the purpose of showing how 
he cast his vote. I have seen elections in the State of Massachusetts held 
in open rooms, and most of the votes were thrown into the box open. It 
a voter there were to swear that he voted for a given candidate, and three or 
four others would prove he voted otherwise, it would be good evidence on 
an indictment for perjury.” 

Mr. John M. Read. —“ I will call your Honor’s attention to one fact 
that may grow out of your decision. If it is admissable to prove how in¬ 
dividuals voted, it may induce the election officers inside to open ballots 
to see the vote, and although there may be a punishment, yet it may be 
done.” 

Judge King. —“ You have yourself given the answer to that; there is a 
punishment.” 

Witness. — “ The name of W. B. Reed was on the ticket my father voted 
for the office of District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ That was on the ticket I gave him. He voted after 
I did. He voted about two o’clock. I was present when he voted. He 
voted the full ticket for all the officers that were run. I voted a full ticket 
with the exception of the Marshall of Police. I resided then in Eighth 
street, six doors above Catharine. I am a ladies’ shoe maker. I live with 
my father. I was 22 on the 5th of September. I had been assessed, and 
paid a tax to Dennis Collins, the tax collector. I voted between 8 and 9 
o’clock in the morning.” 

Witness No. 32 on the list, and his father No. 420. 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I will read his father’s vote to show the value of his tes¬ 
timony. His father did’nt vote a full ticket. He did’nt vote for Marshal 
of Police.” 

Mr. Campbell .— u Whether that last turns out to be right or not, the 
Court is to determine.” 

William Roberts, affirmed. —“ I voted for W. B. Reed, at the last general 
election, for District Attorney.” 

M. A. Lafourcade, sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney. I 
know a man named Anthony Elton. I don’t know where he lives.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I live in Ninth street, below South. I don’t recollect 
now where the place of voting was. I have a short memory, and don’t 
recollect these circumstances. I voted the day of the election. I think I 
examined my ticket. I am not certain that I did. I voted a full ticket.” 

Question .— u How do you know you voted a full ticket?” 


19 


Jlnswer .—“I am not quite certain of that. I am only certain that I 
voted on the day of the election. It is my impression I did, because it 
was election day. I voted at the place where the election was held, I 
think. I don’t know where it was held. I don’t know in what street it 
was. I think it was not at Eighth and South streets, and I rather think it 
was not at Tenth and South streets, but don’t recollect where it was. I 
don’t think it was near the Delaware or Schuylkill. I think it was not 
in Broad street. I don’t exactly recollect where I got the ticket. I think 
I got it the day of the election. I did’nt count how many tickets there 
were, and don’t recollect. My impression is that were several tickets. I 
don’t recollect what was on the outside of any of them. I have no recol¬ 
lection of it.” 

Re-examined .— u I think I saw the name of Mr. Reed on the ticket.” 

Cross-examined. — u It was on the District Attorney ticket. I think I 
saw the outside of the ticket. I don’t recollect if I saw the outside of the 
Marshall of Police ticket. I think District Attorney was on the outside 
of the District Attorney ticket. I have a short recollection, and don’t re¬ 
collect these things.” No. 438 on the list. 

John H. Eckey, sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — i( I reside in Tenth street above Fitzwater. I voted 
between 3| and 4 o’clock. I left my house at 3 o’clock to go down to the 
polls. I don’t remember where I got my ticket. It was left at my store 
during my absence. I had no difficulty in voting. I put my ticket in 
through the window and saw it put in the box, which I always do before 
leaving the windows. I examined my ticket. I don’t remember whose 
name led it. I examined the ticket and the names of the persons, and 
tied it up without regard to order.” No. 509. 

Thos. Brown, sworn. —“ On the Assessor’s list they had my name 
* Robert .’ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the last general 
election for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .— u I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at Eighth 
and Catharine streets. I reside in Tenth street, above Christian, east side. 
I voted a full ticket.” No. 687 on the list. 

Mr. J. M. Read .— “ He says he voted a full ticket. He didn’t vote for 
County Surveyor, nor for or against the amendments.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ So says that list.” 

Judge King.— “ Don’t discuss this now.” 

Dr. J. W. Duffy, sworn. —“ I am a Democrat, but in consequence of the 
state of society in the County of Philadelphia, I voted for Mr. Keyser, 
Mr. Reed, and the amendments. I voted between 12 and 2, I think.” 
No. 278 on the list. 

Cross-examined .—“ I recollect voting for these men, but I don’t recol¬ 
lect whether I voted a full ticket. My impression is that I voted the 
whole of the rest of the Democratic ticket. I believe I voted for Dis¬ 
trict Attorney and Marshall of Police.” 

J. D. George, recalled.— <l l voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last general election for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” No. 493. 


20 


Cross-examined. — (c I voted between 3 and 4 o’clock. I can’t say if I 
voted a full ticket or not. I voted for W. B. Reed. I think I threw 
one out, but which it was I don’t know. It was not for District Attorney, 
Commissioners, or for Congress. I had no difficulty in voting. I got my 
ticket at the polls in the morning. I don’t know from whom. The polls 
were not open when I went in the morning, and I could not remain till 
they were opened, and so after dinner I went down and took my tickets 
with me.” 

John Landon , sworn. —“ I voted for W. B. Reed at the last general 
election in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I voted the general Whig ticket. I voted amend¬ 
ments and all, and examined my ticket. I reside at No. 17 Lebanon st. 
I lived there on the day of the election, and a year before it. I am a 
silk dyer by trade, and follow my business. I am naturalized. When I 
came up to vote I was sent back for my papers. I didn’t vote before I 
got them. My name was not taken down inside before I went for my 
papers. I am certain of that. I first went there between 8 and 9 o’clock. 
I was gone about 20 minutes, and then I brought my papers with me and 
voted. I have voted there fourteen or fifteen years, and am well known 
there.” 

Michael Goodwin , sworn. — <£ I voted for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney at the last general election in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined. — w I reside in Catharine, below Tenth. I am a coach" 
maker by trade. I voted between 4 and 5 o’clock, and voted a full 
ticket, and for the amendment. I don’t remember who I got my ticket 
from. I think I got it from a man by the name of Howard, and I voted 
immediately after I examined it. I got it either from Howard or Bew- 
ley.” No. 552. 

Dr, W. F, Patterson , sworn .—“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamen¬ 
sing. I am informed my name is on the petition, but I never signed it.” 

George M. Cooper , sworn. —“ I voted for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney, in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the last general election.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I voted early—as soon as the polls had opened. I 
think I didn’t vote the full ticket. I resided in Ninth, below Catharine. 
I am a brushmaker. There was not much crowd around the polls when I 
first went there. I had no difficulty in voting.” No. 12. 

James M. Cooper , sworn. —“ I voted for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney, in Second Ward, Moyamensing, in October last.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I live in Ninth street, below Catharine. lama 
brother of the one just examined. I am a carpenter. I voted in the 
morning, between 8 and 9. I don’t know who preceded me.” No. 13. 

John U. Giller , sworn. — u I voted for W. B. Reed for District Attor- 
ney, at the last general election, in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined. —“I reside in Tenth street, above Fitzwater, and lived 
there at the time of the election. It was about 2 o’clock when I voted— 
probably a little before. I think there was about 15 or 20 in a line before 
me at the polls. There was no great difficulty then. I probably had to 
wait half an hour before I got to the window. My impression is that I 
got the ticket from Peter Glasgow. I got it from him or Mr. Jarden. I 


t 


21 


got it on the ground. I looked in it closely and voted a full ticket. I 
don’t recollect who voted immediately before me ; it was no personal ac¬ 
quaintance.” 

Ephraim Pollock , sworn. —“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I reside in Eighth street, above Fitzwater, with my 
brother, Edward Pollock. I am a painter. My age on that day was be¬ 
tween 21 and 22. I was over 21. I voted about 1 o’clock. I don’t live 
in Moyamensing now. I did live there between two and three months be¬ 
fore the election ; over two I think. I voted a full ticket. I examined 
my ticket. I can’t tell who I got it from. I had lived prior to that in 
South Penn. I was born in Ireland ; came to this country about 17 years 
ago. I think I never was naturalized. My father has been a citizen 13 
or 14 years. I had lived in Delaware county prior to living in Spring 
Garden. I left there last April, I believe. I came to Philadelphia, went 
to Spring Garden, was there a little while, and then went to South Penn, 
and left South Penn about 2 months before the last election. I had lived 
with Mr. Lawrence , who is a carter; I was a painter. I can’t say who 
voted immediately before me. A good many were at the polls when I 
was there. My brother voted shortly before me, but I can’t say if his vote 
was put in before mine or not.” 

No. 336 on the list. 

Dr. W. F. Patterson , recalled.—[.Petition shown him .\—“My name is 
not on that petition. I can’t answer directly for whom I voted for Dis¬ 
trict Attorney. I got my ticket from Alderman Fletcher, and voted the 
ticket as I got it. I can’t say what was in it.” 

Chas. J. Shain , recalled .—“ I voted for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the last general election, to the 
best of my knowledge. It was my desire to do so.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I voted between 6 and 7, nearer 7.” 

Re-examined .—“I got the ticket from a friend of mine, and I did not 
examine it. I told him I desired to vote for W. B. Reed. I got a ticket 
from Jas. A. Campbell.- I didn’t look inside. I took his word for it.” 

Stillman Whitney, sworn .—“I voted for W. B. Reed at the last general 
election in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-Examined .—“I reside in Catharine, above Eighth. I voted 
about nine o’clock in the evening. I think (No. 855.) I voted a full 
ticket. I found it under my door the morning of the election with 
several others; it was one of these that I voted. I looked and found 
W. B. Reeds’ name on one, and that was all I wished for. I thought 
that was sufficient and I voted that ticket.” 

Wm. Smith , sworn. — <e I voted for W. B. Reed for the office of District 
Attorney, at the late general election in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-Examined .—“I resided in Morris, above Christian. Iam a brick¬ 
layer. I voted between twelve and one o’clock. Got my ticket at the 
Whig head quarters, directly opposite the polls. I went right over from 
there. I was electioneering, and had a bundle of them. I took one ot 
the tickets out of the bundle and voted. I examined the ticket. To the 
best of my knowledge I voted the full ticket.” 


22 


Richard George , recalled. —“ I voted for District Attorney in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, at the general election in October last, for W. B. 
.Reed. 

Cross-Examined. —“ I voted about two o’clock. I went in the morn- 

1 

ing and the polls were not opened.” 

Albert Duffy , sworn. —“ My tickets were given me by Mr. William 
Duffy, and I voted the ticket he gave me without examining it.” 

Alexander McConnell , sworn. — u I voted for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney at the last general election in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined. —“I resided in Bedford street, between Tenth and 
Eleventh. I can’t say exactly when I voted. It was before dinner, as 
near as I can recollect it was about twelve o’clock. I got my ticket from 
Mr. Fletcher, on the ground, at the polls and voted it. I believe it was 
tied with a string. I took the string off before I voted,—some few 
minutes before. I examined the ticket.” 

Charles Thomas , sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided at No. 30 Lebanon street. I am a house 
painter. I voted between 12 and 1 o’clock. [No. 285.] There was no 
crowd at the polls. I guess about three voted before me as near as I can 
judge. I got my ticket from Wm. Duffy, and examined it before I voted. 
I voted a full ticket, amendment, and all. I don’t recollect the ticket with 
amendment on now. I didn’t take much notice of it. I know I opened 
the whole ticket. I opened and examined it. I didn’t count the tickets 
for I had to be at work at one o’clock. I saw amendment on the ticket I 
voted. 6 Attorney General’ was on the ticket that W. B. Reed’s name 
was on. I know I voted for Keyser for Marshal of Police. I also voted 
for Mr. Levin for member of congress.” 

Henry Beath , sworn. —“I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .— C< I resided at 240 Carpenter street. I was a weaver. 
I voted at about 2 o’clock. [No. 383.] I think a few minutes after that. 
It was after dinner. I got my ticket from Wm. Freeman. It was sent 
to my house. I didn’t vote a full ticket. I threw out the amendment.” 

James Kerr , sworn. — u I voted at the general election in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, in October last, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at Tenth and Carpenter, and am a weaver. 
I voted about two o’clock. I saw Mr. Beath on the ground, and voted 
about the same time with him. I voted a full Whig ticket. I read it, 
and examined pretty much the whole ticket.” 

John Murphey , sworn. — Ci I voted at the general election in October 
last, in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attor¬ 
ney.” 

Cross examined. —“I resided in Eleventh, four doors below Christian. 
I have some property, and take care of it by collecting, dressing up, 
painting, &,c. I voted between twelve and two o’clock. I scratched one 
man—that is all. I voted all the rest, and I voted for the amendment. 
Mr. Landon scratched one man for me—he was one of the Commissioners 
of Moyamensing. I had no pencil myself and got him to do it for me.” 


t 


23 


Samuel Anderson , affirmed .— a I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

John Shermer , affirmed.— u I voted the Whig ticket at the last general 
election in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I don’t know that I examined 
the ticket. I got a friend to examine it for me—that was Alderman 
Campbell.” 

Cross-exajnined .—“ I voted in the neighborhood of noon. I don’t 
exactly remember whether it was before or after dinner. I resided in 
Tenth, below Catharine.” 

Aaron Thompson , sworn .—“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-Examined .— <c I resided in Tenth, below South, by myself and 
wife. I voted between 9 and 10 o’clock, and voted the full ticket.” No. 26. 

Wesley Cole , sworn .—I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“I resided in Erie street. It is between Tenth and 
Eleventh, and runs from Shippen down to Catharine. I voted about 3 
o’clock, as near as I can remember. [No. 385.] I got my ticket, I think, from 
Sam’l Wallington, on the ground, at the polls. I took it to the public house 
and examined it, and came back and voted it. I voted pretty much a full 
ticket. I voted against the amendment. I am satisfied that I voted for 
W. B. Reed. I have been in the habit of splitting my ticket. I voted 
a full ticket, except for Congressman.” 

Robert McMinniman , affirmed .—“ I voted at the last general election 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined.— c( I resided in Shippen, above Tenth. I keep a pub¬ 
lic house. I voted between 12 and 2, I think. I voted for the amend¬ 
ment. I voted a full ticket. Mr. Shultz gave me my ticket when I 
came up to the polls, about 12 o’clock. I went a couple of squares, 
I believe as far as Capt. Paschall’s, and carried my tickets along with me, 
and brought them back again, and voted the same ticket at the polls.” 

Daniel Steward , affirmed .—“ I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I lived at No. 328 South street, on the south side, 
between Seventh and Eighth. It was between 10 and 12 o’clock, as near 
as I can judge, when I voted. It was before dinner.” 

Robert Cameron , sworn. — Mr. Hirst.— iC The petition has come in. I 
understood from Mr. Campbell that if any petitioner was examined as a 
witness it would be made known. John Jarden , J. S. Randall , William 
Smith and Robt. Murray , have been examined, and their names are to the 
petition.” 

Mr. Campbell.— (< Any question of this sort is as open to the Counsel 
hereafter as if opened originally.” 

Witness.— Ci I voted for W. B. Reed at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined.— u I resided in Catharine street, east of Tenth. I live 
now in Fitzwater street, above Tenth. I am a gas fitter. I voted about 8 
o’clock, in the evening. [No. 810.] I voted a full ticket. I got my 


24 


ticket from Mr. Wallington on the ground, at the time I voted. It was 
dark then, and I took it to a public house and examined it.” 

Francis Bogin , sworn .—“ To the best of my knowledge I voted for W. 
B. Reed, at the late general election, in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I 
procured my ticket from Mr. Grimshaw.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Tenth street, below Catharine. I think 
I was the fifth or sixth one that voted in the morning. Iam a ladies’ shoe 
maker. I did’nt examine the ticket, for I knew it was good from the 
gentleman who gave it me. I wanted to vote for Mr. Reed.” 

James R. Reed, sworn. —“I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at* 
the last general election, for W. B. Reed.” 

Cross-examined. — u I resided in Tenth street, below Shippers I am a 
clerk in the Post Office, and, was so then. J voted about 9 o’clock in the 
morning, perhaps four or five voted before me. I got my ticket on the 
ground, and looked at it before I voted.” 

Samuel Wallace, sworn. —“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last general election for W. B. Reed, for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I reside at No. 7 Erie street. I am a tin plate 
worker. I voted between 12 and 2 o’clock. [No. 341.] I had a pocket 
full of tickets. I got some from Mr. Fletcher, some from Mr. Kirkpat¬ 
rick, and some from others. I examined my own ticket. I read it all 
through, and I voted a full ticket.” 

John Bell, sworn. —“I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at No. 5 Erie street. I am a City col¬ 
lector for the North American newspaper. I voted before 9 o’clock in 
the morning. I voted a full ticket, some seven or eight of them.” 

Chas. H. Darnel, sworn .—“I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I reside in Catharine street, below Ninth. I am a 
weigh master. I voted in the neighborhood of 12 o’clock. I don’t know 
exactlyVho I got my ticket from. I got it at the polls, and I voted about 
ten minutes after. I looked at it. I believe I voted a full ticket.” 

Samuel Robinson, sworn. — u I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — a I resided in Fitzwater street, below Ninth. I voted 
between one and three o’clock. I voted after dinner, before I went to 
business. I am a clerk. I voted a full ticket, except a few Commission¬ 
ers I left off. 

Benj. Tomlinson , affirmed. —“ I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined —“ I resided at 323 South Tenth street. I am a house 
carpenter. I voted about 1 o’clock. I voted a full ticket. I got my 
ticket from Robt. E. Grimshaw , and I examined it.” 

Wm. Lees, sworn— “ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the 
last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined.— u I live in Shippen street, above Tenth. I am a 


25 


stone cutter. 1 voted a little after 4 o’clock. My ticket was put under 
my door, and I brought it from home. I examined it. I believe I voted a 
full ticket. I know I voted for Mr. Reed, and for Keyser for Marshal of 
Police, and I believe I voted the whole ticket.” 

W. E. MeGinnis, affirmed .—“ I voted at the last general election for 
District Attorney in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed.” 

Cross-examined. —I resided in Eighth street, above Carpenter. I am 
a rope maker. I voted between 12 and 2. I am not certain whether it 
was before or after dinner. I think it was before I eat dinner. I got the 
ticket in my house. It was left there I expect by some person. I ex¬ 
amined it.” 

Wm. Harkness , affirmed. — u I voted for W. B. Reed for District Attor- 
ney, to the best of my knowledge, at the last general election, in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing. I procured my ticket from Robt. Murray. 

Cross-examined. — (t I resided in Carpenter street, below Eighth. I am 
a Carpenter. I voted between 5 and 7 o’clock, before supper. I did not 
examine my ticket. I received it from one of the petitioners.” 

A. F. Ward , sworn .—“ I voted for W. B. Reed, at the last general 
election, in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined. — u I resided in Tenth street, below Catharine, on the 
west side. I am a publisher. I voted about 3 o’clock, between 2 and 3. 
I got two tickets, one I think from Mr.- Weatherby. I don’t remember 
who I got the other from. I examined them—one had a ticket for the 
amendment and the other had not, and I voted the one that had the amend¬ 
ment. I voted a full ticket. I examined the ticket.” 

Andrew Craig , sworn .—“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for 
W. B. Reed for District Attorney, at the last election.” 

Cross-examined. — u I resided in Hubbell street, below Fitzwater. I am 
a house carpenter. I don’t recollect whether I voted between 12 and 1, 
or between 6 and 7. I don’t recollect whether it was the time I was on 
the ground first or second. I am not certain whether I got my ticket from 
J. Fletcher or Mr. Murray. I examined the ticket and read the names. 
I got it between 12 and 1, or else between 6 and 7. 

Manuel M. Phillips , sworn. —“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
in October last, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I resided at the N. W. corner of Tenth and Fitz¬ 
water. I am a plate printer. I think I voted at about quarter of 9 
o’clock, in the morning. I don’t think I voted a full ticket. I think it 
was full with the exception of the amendment.” 

Benjamin F. White , sworn .—“I voted for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney, in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the last general election.” 

Cross-examined. —“I resided at 283 South Tenth street. I am with 
my father in the cabinet business. I voted between two and half-past 
three. I examined my ticket, and voted a full ticket with the exception 
of Congress.” 

Thomas J. Lloyd, sworn. —“I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
for W. B. Reed, for District Attorney, last October.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Tenth, above Shippen. I am in the 

4 


26 


. ron business. I voted between ten and eleven. I got my ticket, I think, 
from Mr. Weatherby. I examined it and voted a full ticket.” 

Jacob Spicer, sworn. — Question. — 41 Did you \ote for the office of 
District Attorney in the Second Ward, Moyamensing, in October last?” 

Answer. — 44 1 should have to contradict the records to swear to that. 
I voted for W. B. Reed.” 

Cross-examined. — 44 1 live in Eighth, below Shippen. T am a cabinet 
maker. I voted at ten minutes of twelve o’clock, or thereabouts. The 
window list kept by the officers didn’t give me any votes at all for county 
officers. I examined it in the Prothonotary’s office, about six days after the 
election. I didn’t vote a full ticket. I struck Adam Shetzline and John 
Parker from it. I struck off all the Native Americans.” 

Mr. John M. Read. — 44 1 don’t know who they are.” 

Witness. — 44 You have been a politician long enough to know that. I 
voted for Congressman, Marshall of Police, and for the Amendment} for 
District Attorney, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, for 
County Surveyor, three members of Assembly; the rest I did not vote.” 

Thomas W. Hutton , sworn. — 44 1 voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
last October, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — 44 1 resided in Margaret street, between Ninth and 
Tenth'. I voted between three and four o’clock. I am a laborer. Mr. 
Fletcher gave me my ticket. I examined it before voting. I voted a 
full ticket.” 

John Buckius, sworn. — 44 1 voted for W. B. Reed, in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, at the last general election for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — 44 1 reside in Ninth, below Shippen. I am a house 
carpenter. I voted between twelve and one o’clock, after dinner. I 
voted a full ticket to the best of my knowledge. I got my ticket from 
Mr. Matthieu, and I examined it.” 

Edward Boyle , sworn. — 44 1 voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — 44 1 resided in Clifton street, between Tenth and 
Eleventh, Shippen and South. I am a clerk. I voted about nine o’clock 
in the evening. I got my ticket on the ground. It was dark then. I 
took it in the house and examined it. I voted a full ticket.” 

Augustus A. Thomasson , sworn. — 44 1 voted for Mr. Reed last October, 
for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .— 44 1 resided in Second Ward, Moyamensing, in Stew¬ 
ard street. I think I voted about 2 o’clock, before dinner, on my way 
from the store. I voted a full ticket. My brother’s name is John R.” 

John S. Davis , sworn .— 44 1 voted for W. B. Reed for District Attorney 
in October last.” 

Cross-examined. — 44 1 live in Second Ward, Moyamensing. I am a 
house carpenter. I voted about 11 o’clock in the morning. I voted a 
full ticket, except the amendment. I am not certain whether I voted 
that or not. I think I voted against it. I got my ticket from the Han¬ 
cock Temperance Hall, the evening previous. I read it on the way 
there.” 


27 


Robert Black , sworn. — “ I voted at the general election in October 
last, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at the N. E. corner of Steward and Ca¬ 
tharine streets. I am a carpenter. I voted, I guess, among the first 25. 
It was just after the poll was opened. 1 don’t know who gave me my 
ticket; I got a handful from different persons. I picked this out; I 
examined it and looked at all the names, and voted a full ticket..” 


Henry E. Moss , sworn .—“ I voted at the general election in October 
last, for W. B. Reed for District Attorne}'.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at No. 20 Flour street. I am a tailor. I 
voted between ten and one o’clock. I got my ticket from a gentleman 
named Murray. I looked at it before voting it.” 


Jesse Bewley , sworn. — f< I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, in 
October last, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Catharine street, below Tenth. I am 
a watchman. I voted between 12 and 2 o’clock. I was at the polls 
from a little after 12 till two. I live on the south side of Catharine 
street. I think I got my ticket from Mr. Howard. I examined it before 
voting. I voted a full ticket, except the amendment, which I believe I 
threw out.” 


William Keyser , sworn. — u To the best of my knowledge I voted for 
W. B. Reed for District Attorney at the election in Second Ward, Moya¬ 
mensing.” I got my ticket from Mr. Matthieu on the ground.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at Catharine and Morris streets. I am a 
laborer. I voted between 11 and 12. I cannot read or write.” 


Wm. Landon , recalled.—“I voted for Wm. B. Reed at the general 
election in October last, for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I put down the name of the man who gave me the 
ticket. It was Samuel Wallington. I put it down to-day. I know the 
man perfectly well, and have for years, but not his name. I did not vote 
the ticket immediately. I examined it and kept one of them till yester¬ 
day I o-ot the ticket close to 9 o’clock. I voted about twenty minutes 
of 10 • it may have been a little later. I examined my ticket first in the 
tavern! I examined a few of the tickets and found they were Wkig 
tickets, and voted it. W. B. Reed’s name came under my notice. The 
others I folded back again. I knew the man to be always a Whig, and 


depended on him.” 

John Skill, affirmed “ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing,. at the 
last general election for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined, “ I live in Fitzwater street, below Eighth. I am a 
painter and glazier. I voted between 10 and 12 o’clock. I got one ticket 
on the ground, and my son gave me another going along. I can t say 
which I voted. I made my ticket up from the two. They were no dif¬ 
ferent tickets, but one had the amendment in and the other had not, and 
I threw out the one that had’ntthe amendment in, and I voted a full ticket, 

with the amendment.” 

John Skill, Jr., sworn.”—'“ I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney. 


28 


Cross-examined. —“ I was 21 on the 6th of last July. I voted between 
10 and 12 o’clock, at the same time with my father, right after him. I 
voted a full ticket.” 

John H. Hntt, sworn .—•“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the 
last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I lived in Eleventh street, above Carpenter. I am 
a cordwainer. I voted as near as I can recollect about 5| o’clock. I got 
my ticket of Daniel Wyant. I examined it, and voted a full ticket.” 

Daniel Wyant, affirmed. —“ I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“Hive at the southeast corner of Eighth and Catha¬ 
rine streets. I am a shoemaker. I voted between 12 and 2 o’clock. I 
will not be positive as to time. I voted a full ticket with the exception 
of the Amendment. I got my ticket from Jas. Kirkpatrick. I examined 
it, and found it to be correct. 

George C. Mattson, sworn.— u I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I resided in Eighth street, below Catharine, six 
doors, on the east side. I am a plasterer by trade, and have resided in 
Moyamensing about three years next April. I voted at ten minutes after 
twelve o’clock. I had to be at the building at one o’clock, and I pulled 
out my watch and looked when I got the ticket to vote. I got the ticket 
from Mr. Fletcher. I voted right away. I examined it on the ground, as 
soon as I got it. I untied it. It was a full ticket.” 

James Davis, sworn .—“ I voted for W. B. Reed for District Attorney, 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing, in October last.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I reside in Eighth street, below Catharine. I am 
a jeweller. I voted about 7 o’clock, P. M. There was no Amendment 
on my ticket.” 

Frederick Kent, sworn. —“ I voted for W. B. Reed for District Attorney, 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the election in October.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I lived in Ninth street, below Shippen. I am a 
button maker. I voted at about ten o’clock, in the morning. I got my 
ticket on the ground from Mr. Matthieu. I voted the full ticket with the 
exception of the Amendment. I got my ticket on the ground, about 20 
yards from the polls. I was not in the line at the time. I examined all 
my tickets.” 

John McGrath, sworn .— (i I voted in Second W^ard, Moyamensino* in 
October last, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined.—“I resided in Catharine, below Ninth. I am a 
tailor. I suppose I voted at about two or three o’clock. I think there 
was a line at the time. I suppose I was about 15 minutes before votino- 
I got my ticket from a friend on the ground. I voted that ticket. I am 
certain of that. I examined that ticket, and I am certain I voted the 
ticket I examined. I may have had another in my hand, but I voted that 
one. I can’t tell the names on the ticket. I am sure I had none but the 
one I voted in my hand. I examined that and it was a full ticket It 
was a Whig ticket, with the exception of Thos. B. Florence.” 


29 


Chas. H. Masson , sworn. — ; I have a relative named C. A. Masson, 
who resides in Tenth, above Poplar, Spring Garden. He has lived there 
for the last three years at least. He is a jeweller. I don’t know of any 
other person of that name residing in the County of Philadelphia.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I live in Sixth street, Northern Liberties, and have 
lived there over a year. I lived in Spring Garden prior to that, and I 
lived there for the last ten years, and prior to that I lived in the Northern 
Liberties, and I was brought up there, and went into Spring Garden to 
live, and moved into Northern Liberties again. I have never lived in 
Moyamensing, and my cousin, C. A. Masson, never lived there. I have 
never lived in Moyamensing, or Southwark, or in the City proper.” C. 
A. Masson is No. 1105 on the list. 

Allen B. Miller , sworn. —“ I have never resided in Moyamensing. I 
live in Schuylkill Eighth street, above Cherry. I know of no one named 
Allen Miller in Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined .— u I have resided where I do one year, and I resided 
before that three or four doors above. Before that I resided at Schuylkill 
Eighth and Chesnut. I never lived out of the city. I never lived in 
Moyamensing.” “No. 1015, Allen Miller A 

Thos. Henderson , sworn. —“I voted for W. B.Reed,at the last general 
election, in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined. —“I resided in Milton street, between Tenth and Ele¬ 
venth. I am a laborer. I voted between 1 and 3 o’clock. I voted a full 
ticket. I got my ticket from Beauchamp Murray. I did not examine my 
ticket. I have one of them in my pocket left yet.” 

Adjourned to meet at 3, P. M. 


Thursday, Feh. 13, 1851—Court met again at 3 o’clock, P. M. 

Hugh McMullin , sworn. —“ I voted for W. B. Reed for District Attor¬ 
ney, at the last general election, in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined. — te I resided in Erie street. It is between Tenth and 
Eleventh and Shippen, and Fitzwater streets. I am a marble polisher. I 
think I voted between twelve and one o’clock. I voted a full ticket, 
except the amendment. I got my ticket from Mr. Fletcher.” 

H. H. Eldridge , sworn. —“I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for Wm. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Ninth, two doors north of Christian 
street. I am a merchant. I went shortly after the opening of the polls, 
at a little after 10 o’clock, in the morning.” 

Jos. B. Barry , sworn. —“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I reside in Tenth, below South. I voted early in 
the morning, I think between nine and ten o’clock. I voted a full 
ticket.” 



30 


James E. Bell , sworn. —“I voted at the late general election in Second 
Ward, iVloyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examinel. — U I reside in Ninth, second house above Christian, 
west side. I am an assistant in the Girard Bank. I was then in the 
employ of H. H. Eldridge. I voted at about half past twelve o’clock. 
I was 21 on the 13th of last May. I voted a full Whig ticket, except 
for Commissioners, and I voted the regular Democratic ticket for Com¬ 
missioners.” 

Atwood Smith, sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I resided at No. 233 South Ninth street. I am a 
salesman. 1 voted about one o’clock. I voted a full County ticket, in¬ 
cluding District Attorney.” 

John Thomas , affirmed. —“To the best of my knowledge, I voted at 
the last general election in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed 
for District Attorney. I got a ticket on my way down, from Jas. A. 
Campbell, I think.” 

Cross-examined —“I resided in Eleventh, between South and Shippen. 
I am a carpenter. I voted in the afternoon, between one and three 
o’clock. I examined the ticket that was given to me.” 

Question. —“ Why did you say 4 to the best of your knowledge and 
belief 5 '?” 

Answer. —“ I believe what I saw on the ticket; that is the reason 1 
said it. I saw the name on the ticket. I examined it.” 

Asa Copeland , affirmed. —“ I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I resided in Shippen, between Ninth and Tenth. 
I am a ship-joiner. I voted about 7, in the evening. I folded the ticket 
myself. I live at Mr. Weatherby’s, at the corner of Shippen and Ro- 
naldson street.” 

Johnson Hemphill , sworn. —“ I am a laborer, and resided in October 
last, in a little street between Carpenter and Milton streets, below Eleventh. 
1 did’nt vote at the last general election in Second Ward, Moyamensing. 
I could not vote. I never had any papers. I am not long enough in the 
country.” Name on the Assessor’s list, and No. 982 on the window list. 

Edward Quin, sworn. —“ I am a laborer, and resided in Tenth street, 
below Christian. I did’nt vote at the last general election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing. I am not qualified to vote. I am not naturalized.” 
Name on the Assessor’s list, and on the list of voters both at Nos. 966 and 
979. 

James Caslaw , sworn. —“ I voted at the election in October, for W. B. 
Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Tenth street, between Catharine and 
Christian. I am a weaver. I suppose I voted between two and three 
o’clock. I got my ticket from Air. Bogia; he gave it to me about 11 
o’clock, at my own house, I forget whether I examined it or not. My 
memory is very short. I believe it was a Native or a Whig ticket.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ The 74th section of the Act of Assembly prescribes 
that as soon as the election shall be finished, the tickets, list of taxables, 


31 


taHy papers, the list of voters, and the oaths of the election officers, shall 
be carefully deposited in one or more of the ballot boxes. In the boxes 
before your Honors are neither the list of taxabies, nor list of voters. I 
piopose to examine A1derman Fletcher and Sheriff Deal, to show that they 
have been faithfully kept while in their possession.” 

Judge King. “ Is not that assumed, till something is said to the con¬ 
trary V 9 ° 

Mr. Campbell. — u I only want the fact, that neither of these two papers 
could be found in the boxes, to be brought before the Court.” 

Judge King.—“ I certainly so understand it now.” 

Jas. A. Campbell, affirmed. —“In the tickets that I distributed for the 
office of District Attorney, was printed the name of Wm. B. Reed. I had 
no other ticket in my hand that day, that I know of, except W. R. Dick¬ 
erson gave me two or three slips as I went up to the polls to vote, with 
gum arabic on them to paste over other names. They were not used 
by me.” 

Question. —“ Will you look at that list, (the same as was handed to Mr. 
Miller,) beginning at 907, and running out, and give me the names of any 
persons whom y^ou may recognise V 9 

Witness. —“Here is 911, Wm. McCormick, a curb setter; he did live 
in Reed’s Court, in ’49. It runs out of Flower street, below Fitzwater. 
Wm. Taylor, Sr. and Jr., 939 and 940. I knew both of them. The lat¬ 
ter lived in Fitzwater, above Eighth, and the old gentleman lived in Ca¬ 
tharine, near Tenth. Edward Virtue , 942. He did live in Morris street, 
below Fitzwater. Charles Phillips, 960, a carpenter. His father lived 
in Second Ward, but I think his father is in New York. He had some 
business before a magistrate here and he came on from New York to at¬ 
tend to it. His father lived in our ward. James JVell, 964. I think is 
Jesse Nell and did not vote. I think there is no other Nell in the ward. 
He had buried his daughter under very painful circumstances. She had 
taken a large dose of morphine and died. Jacob Knox, 967, a printer, 
in Hubbell street, below Fitzwater. 977, Garret Ruth, formerly lived in 
Tenth street, above Catharine. I think he has moved out of the ward. 
John Thomas, 992. He was examined a short time since. I don’t know 
if that is the one. Joseph Smith, 1078. There was a Jos. Smith , a brick¬ 
layer, lived in our ward, but now lives at Pine and Fourth streets, South 
Camden. He did live in Baker street, below Eighth. He went to Jersey, 
at least some two or three years ago. Alexander Elliott, 1081. There 
was a young man residing in First Ward, N. E. corner of Seventh and 
Shippen streets. T am not certain but what the father’s name was the 
same. What has become of him I have not known for the last year. 1093 
is Henry Barton , who once resided in Second Ward, and now lives in 
Third Ward, South street, above Eleventh. John Smith , 1094. There 
was a John B. Smith lived and died last year in Christian street, below 
Eighth. 1102, R. G. Adams. There was a Robt. Adams, a hatter, lived 
three or four doors above me. He now resides in Market street, below 
Tenth. He moved away about a year ago. Francis McCloskey, 1198, 
once resided in Seventh street, below Shippen ; did live in Federal st., 
near Thirteenth. I have seen him standing at his door. Anthony Elton, 
1202, has been dead some years. He lived in our neighborhood. Robt. 


32 


Thompson is superintendent of Lafayette Cemeterey, in Fourth Ward, in 
Federal street, between Ninth and Tenth. He lives there. I don’t re¬ 
member if he ever lived in Second Ward. He is No. 1152 here. Fre¬ 
derick Offerman , 1156. He lived in Eighth street, above Shippen, for 
some years. Robert Nixon , 1158. A family lived in a house of mine, 
next door to where I live. There were three men, and I think one of 
their names was Robert ; they have not lived there for some years. George 
Norton, I suppose, is the lawyer. He is not living in our ward— 
he lives in Second Ward, Southwark. I have resided in Moyamensing, 
off and on, for 34 years. I first lived there in 1817. Since 1830, I have 
been where I now reside. I put up my shop there, and in ’32 moved 
there with my family and have been there ever since. I did at one time 
think I knew every body in the ward. 

Cross-examined .—“ I don’t know of any family of Nortons in the 
Ward, or if I know any, I don’t call them to mind now.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“I now call your Honor’s attention to the 23d specifi¬ 
cation : (reads it).” 

Mr. J. M. Read .—“ I was not here yesterday, but I understand the 
Court directed the parties to proceed in order, and not skip from one 
specification to another. If that was the decision of your Honor, I sup¬ 
pose it should be adhered to.” 

Judge King. — u It is advisable to go on with the specifications in order, 
if it is practicable.” 

Mr. Campbell .— Cc It is not practicable, where we keep the witnesses 
here with great difficulty. There can be certainly no difficulty to the 
learned counsel, if I state to them the part to which it applies.” 

Mr. J. M. Read .—“I had always supposed that if there was a direc¬ 
tion of the Court to proceed in order, it was to be adhered to.” 

J udge King. — u What are the specifications retained between the 3d 
and 23d'?”— Mr. Campbell reads them. 

Mr. Campbell .—“ I propose to call Alderman Fletcher , as to the time 
when he received these boxes, to bear upon the 8th specification. So far 
as I am at present advised, though I do not say positively, I do not intend 
to offer evidence upon the 15th, and that includes the 16th specification. 
Then I come down to the 23d, which is the one now before the Court.” 

Judge King. —“Then it is in substance and effect the next specification. 
Go on, then. 

Mr. Campbell .—“ We will now for the present confine ourselves to the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. The office in which these 
original papers are deposited is closed, and there is no means of access to 
it. The number of votes that will be found cast for W. B. Reed is 26 
subject to be verified by the return.” 

Alderman Fletchei , sworn .—“ I produced yesterday, all the boxes 
confided to my care after the election of October last. Five were 
in my possession; one was taken charge of by the sheriff and I re¬ 
turned four into Court yesterday. During the time they were in 
my possession they were not opened, and no papers were taken from 
them—they were in the third story of my house. I received them 
on Thursday morning following the election, at a quarter of two 


33 


o’clock; it was quarter of two or three—I looked at my watch at the 
time. The inspectors and judges of the election brought them. They 
weie Wm. JtfcJVIullen , Peter Donnelly , John JWegarey. Joseph Wortheim , 
and James Rayburn.” 

Cross-examined .—There were five boxes, and they were all I think.” 

EASTERN PRECINCT OF PENN DISTRICT. 

Samuel B. Wright , affirmed .—•“ I voted in the Eastern precinct of the 
District of Penn, at the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .— U 1 resided in Lewis, 11 or 12 doors above Thomp¬ 
son. I am a carpenter. I voted between half past 12 and 1 o’clock. I 
voted a full ticket. I don’t know the person’s name from whom I got my 
ticket. I got it on the election ground, and examined it partly. I exa¬ 
mined the county ticket—the district ticket I did’nt care much about.” 

Question. —“ Was there any district ticket last fall 1” 

Answer .—“ I don’t remember that there was.” 

Walter Russell , sworn. — f< I voted at the election last fall, in the East¬ 
ern precinct of the District of Penn. When I went there, a man asked 
me if I was going to vote. I said I was going to vote for Keyser, and he 
asked me to vote for W. B. Reed too, and I got Keyser’s ticket and W. B. 
Reed’s, and some other ticket for turning out judges, or something or other, 
and I voted them.” 

Cross-examined .— u I resided in Lewis street, five doors below Master. 
It was between 7 and 9 o’clock when I voted. It was not a great way 
from eight. I can’t say who I got my ticket from. I examined it my¬ 
self, and then I took it up to the polls.” 

John Kirkpatrick , sworn. —“I voted at the last general election in Se 
cond Ward, Moyamensing, for District Attorney. I believe I voted for 
W. B. Reed. I received my ticket from my son—he is not here.” 

David W. Williams , sworn. —“I voted in the Eastern precinct of the 
District of Penn, at the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“I resided in Tenth, six doors above Master. I have 
resided there a couple of years. I had lived in Fourth, near Jeffries, for 
three months before. Before that, I lived in Bucks Co., and lived there 13 
years, in Northampton township. I am a Welshman. I landed here about 
17 years ago, last September. I declared my intentions just when I landed, 
and never took out my papers till General Harrison’s election. I voted 
about three o’clock. Mr. Weatherby gave me my ticket. I am certain 
who I voted for. I read it. It was doubled up when I got it, and I 
opened it and read it.” 

Benjamin Smithy sworn .—“I voted at the last general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney. 

Cross-examined .— U I resided in Tenth, below Jefferson. I am a sad¬ 
dler. f suppose I am put down as a victualler or butcher on the asses¬ 
sor’s list, but I am a saddler now. When I was assessed I followed the 
5 


34 


victualling business. I voted about 7 o’clock, in the evening. I got my 
ticket of Mr. Weatherby. I went to him and asked for a ticket, and he 
gave me one, and I voted it. I went directly from him to the polls. 7 here 
was a string around the tickets, and I untied it first, and saw Mr. Heed 
and Mr. Keyser’s names, and that was sufficient for me, and I voted the 
whole ticket. I had but that one ticket—that is the only one I had, and 
the only one I voted. I voted five tickets/ 5 

Robert Fadely , sworn. — (C I voted at the last election, in the Eastern 
precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Prospect street, below Master. I voted 
in the neighborhood of two o’clock, after dinner. I voted in the Eastern 
precinct. I got my ticket from Wm. Doyle. 55 

John C. Weatherby , sworn. —“I voted at the last election, in the Eastern 
precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney. 55 

Cross-examined .— u I resided in Tenth street, five doors below Thomp¬ 
son. I was employed in the Custom House. I voted early in the morning, 
soon after the polls were opened. I voted before coming into town. I 
came into town that morning. 55 

Wm. Yerger , sworn. —“I voted at the last election, in the Eastern pre¬ 
cinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney. 55 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided in Tenth street, five doors above Master. 
My business formerly was a grocer, but I was in no business at that time. 
I voted at about half-past one o’clock. I got my ticket from the Whig 
head-quarters, off the table. I voted a full ticket, and examined it.” 

John Fields , sworn. — u I voted at the last election, in the Eastern pre¬ 
cinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“I resided in Tenth street, six or seven doors below 
Thompson street, west side. I kept public house. I voted between twelve 
and two o’clock. I didn’t get any dinner that day. I don’t recollect who 
I got my ticket from. I had several tickets. I got one from Mr. Hyne- 
man in the morning. I made a ticket. I didn’t vote the whole ticket. 
Those I did’nt like I cut off, and pasted on the others.” 

Jno. Jlllaback, sworn. —“I voted at the last general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. I believe I voted for W. B. 
Reed for District Attorney. I did’nt examine the ticket. I got it from 
Mr. Dingee. 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Lewis street, above Girard Avenue. I 
am a carpenter. It was between seven and eight o’clock, in the evening, 
when I voted.” 

Wm. Stroud , sworn. — {< I voted at the last election in the Eastern pre¬ 
cinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at Lewis street and Girard Avenue, and 
kept public house. I think I voted in the evening near six o’clock. I was 
there two or three times, but did’nt vote the first time. I think I got my 
ticket from Wm. Boyle. I had several handed to me, but I selected one, and 
voted it. I can’t say who else I received tickets from. I took five or six 
and chose my own ticket out of them. I knew what it was when I put 
it in, and who I was voting for.” 


35 


Robert. K. Able , sworn. — <c I voted at the last general election in the 
eastern precinct of the District of Pennsylvania for W B. Reed for Dis¬ 
trict Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I resided in Alder street, five doors below Girard 
Avenue. I am a gold and silver watch case maker. I voted between 
two and three o’clock. I disremember who I got my ticket from. I got 
it at the polls and voted it immediately. I don’t remember how many 
tickets there was in it. I voted the full ticket. I know it by each ticket’s 
being placed on the box separately. I can’t tell how many boxes there 
were. I examined the ticket.” 

David G. Wagner , sworn. — u I voted at the last general election in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I lived in Tenth, above Poplar, on the west side. 
No. 475. I have been there sixteen years. I voted between twelve and 
four, I think. I was there at different times, and did not vote. I voted 
the full ticket.” 

George tenderling , affirmed. —“ I voted for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney, at the last general election in the Eastern precinct of the Dis¬ 
trict of Penn.” 

Cross-examined. — U I resided right on the line of Spring Garden and 
Penn, eleven doors above Poplar. I am a tailor. I voted between 
twelve and eight o’clock. I was pretty busy all day. I voted before 
eight o’clock I know. I don’t think I voted before one. I generally 
vote when I go up to dinner, but on that day I was electioneering. I 
voted between twelve and eight, and voted but once. There was not a 
crowd at the polls when I voted. There was none before me, except 
those standing round and talking. When I went there was nobody 
voting, and I put it in. I think I got the tickets from head-quarters. I 
had some in my pocket and some in my hands. I examined it.” 

Abraham Juvenal , sworn. — a I voted for Wm. B. Reed for District 
Attorney, at the last general election in the Eastern precinct of the Dis¬ 
trict of Penn.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I lived at the N. W. corner of Eleventh and Girard 
avenue. I voted, I think, in the morning, shortly after the poles were 
opened. I follow no business. I have resided there, I think, since Nov., 
’46. I paid a county tax before the election. I paid tax on property 
situated in various parts of the District.” 

Joseph McCabe , sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election in the 
District of Penn for District Attorney. I supposed I voted for W. B. 
Reed. I can’t tell from whom I got my ticket. I received a ticket from 
John C. Weatherby. I opened it and read it to my satisfaction, but, 
having made up my mind not to vote, I put it in my pocket and didn’t 
vote it. I went to the polls, and was pressed by a man active for W. B. 
Reed, and I took a ticket from him and put it in.” 

Cross-examined. —“I live in Tenth, above Girard Avenue. I voted 
about 6 o’clock.” 

Re-examined. —“ The man I got the ticket from was standing on the S. 
E. corner of Tenth and Thompson. It was on his persuasion I went to 


3 G 


vote. I knew very well, from the time I staid there, that he was elec¬ 
tioneering for W. B. Reed.” 

Charles Farmer , sworn .— u I voted at the late general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. I intended to vote for B. Wm. 
Reed. I received my ticket from John Jacob Boler, and I voted the 
ticket I obtained from him.” 

Cross-examined .—“I am not a judge of the English language, and 
there is a difficulty in my understanding it. I was born in Germany. I 
was naturalized in 1841—that is the first—the last paper I got last year, 
about a quarter of a year before the election.” 

John R. Conrad , sworn .—“I voted for W. B. Reed at the late general 
election, in the East precinct of the District of Penn, for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Hutchinson street, below Master. I 
am in a coal yard. I voted about seven o’clock in the evening. I got a 
ticket from Abraham Juvenal. I examined all my ticket but the State’s 
Attorney.” 

Re-examined .—“I voted the ticket Mr. Juvenal gave me. He gave it 
to me at the window.” 

Abraham Juvenal , recalled.— (i I gave tickets to persons on the election 
ground to be voted. I had about one hundred and twenty five tickets that 
I procured for myself, and tied up, and I took them on the ground, and I 
feel as confident as of anything that they were the whole Whig ticket, 
with Mr. Reed for District Attorney. I gave to many persons. 

John Waterhouse , sworn. —“ I voted at the late general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney. 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided in Eleventh, between Thompson and 
Master. I don’t know what my business is. I generally when the as¬ 
sessor comes, give him my business, but I never find it right on the list. 
If they ask me, I generally call myself a spinner. I don’t follow any 
business. They say I am an Englishman. My mother says so. I suppose 
I am over fifty years old. I have been in this country over thirty years. 
I had a good deal of business on hand that day, and called at the polls 
after twelve o’clock, and was going for my son. I forget whether I voted 
at that time or when I returned at six o’clock. I got my ticket from my 
wife. I examined it.” 

Mr. McCabe , recalled. — fC I have seen the gentleman who gave me the 
ticket I voted, since I was examined. It was Mr. Juvenal, who was 
here.” 

John L . Durdon , sworn .—“ I voted for W. B. Reed, for District At¬ 
torney at the last general election, in the Eastern precinct of the District 
of Penn.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided in Clinton street above Franklin. I am 
a ladies’ shoemaker. I voted between one and two o’clock. I got my 
ticket from Edward Dingee. I did not examine it before I voted, but I 
am fully confident that I voted the Native American and Whig ticket at 
the time.” 


37 


Jacob Dingee , sworn. —“I voted for W. B. Reed at the late election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I lived in Eighth street, four doors below Thomp¬ 
son. I voted at quarter past 1 o’clock. I got my ticket from Wm. Doyle 
and examined it. I never said I didn’t examine the ticket. This gentle¬ 
man here is referring to the man just examined. It was not me—it 
was the other man. I examined mine. I examined W. B. Reed’s, and 
Keyser’s. They were on separate papers. The rest I didn’t know much 
about, and didn’t care a great sight about them.” 

Edward Dingee , affirmed. — u I voted for W. B. Reed for District Attor¬ 
ney, at the late election, in the eastern precinct of the district of Penn. 
The tickets I gave to Mr. Durdon and Mr, Allabach had W. B. Reed’s 
name on them. I had no others, and if I gave to any other person it 
was that ticket. 

Cross-examined. —“ I reside in Seventh street, above Poplar. I follow 
the brick business. I can’t say when I voted. I went to the polls at 
about dinner time and was there till night. It was about 11 o’clock when 
I first went there, then I went home to dinner, and then I was there back¬ 
wards and forwards till 9 o’clock in the evening.” 

John C. Oelschlager , sworn. —“ I voted for District Attorney at the late 
general election, in the eastern precinct of the District of Penn. I sup¬ 
pose I voted for W. B. Reed. I got the ticket from J. J. Bohler. 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided at Eleventh st. and Girard Avenue. I am 
sure I put in the ticket Mr. Bohler gave me. I have been in the country 
10 years last spring. I was naturalized these four years. This is the 4th 
time I voted.” 

John J. Bohler , sworn. —“I voted at the late general election in the 
eastern precinct of the District of Penn for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney. W. B. Reed’s name for District Attorney was in all the tickets 
I gave out.” 

Cross-examined —“ I resided in Eleventh street, above Girard Avenue. 
I voted early in the morning of that day, some time after the polls were 
opened—within an hour I think.” 

MO Y AMEN SING. 

Patrick McGranigan , sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I reside in Eighth street, below Shippen. I voted 
to the best of my knowledge between 12 and 1 o’clock, I got my Demo¬ 
cratic ticket, to the best of my opinion, from Bill Lagan , and Mr. Reed’s 
ticket from Thos. McMenomee . 1 mixed them together. 

PENN. 

William T. Doyle, sworn. —“ I voted in the eastern precinct of the 
District of Penn, at the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney. To the best of my knowledge, W. B. Reed’s name was in the 
tickets I distributed, for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — (C I reside in Lewis street, below Girard Avenue. 1 
am a stone mason. I voted in the early part of the day.” 


38 


Charles Garman, affirmed. —“ I voted at the late general election, in 
the eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I reside in Eleventh street, eight doors below Gi¬ 
rard Avenue. I am a cabinet maker. I voted between 9 and 10 o’clock 
in the morning. I got my ticket at the Whig head-quarters.” 

G. W. Metlar, sworn. — c< I voted at the late general election, in the 
eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I resided at No. 23 Hutchinson street. I have a 
leather store at 102 North Front street. I voted in the early part of the 
evening, after supper time. I did it by candle light.” 

Reuben Myers, sworn. —“I voted at the late general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Eleventh, below Girard Avenue. I am 
a cutler. I got my ticket from Mr. Juvenal.” 

Samuel Richardet, sworn. — <£ I voted at the last general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Eleventh, below Girard Avenue. At 
the time I was a carpenter. I think I voted between 1 and 3 o’clock.” 

Samuel Pinkard, sworn. —“I voted at the late general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-Examined. —“ I reside at 22 Lewis street. I am a piano-forte 
maker. I voted at about quarter of five. I got my ticket from Wm. T. 
Doyle.” 

Geo. Robinson, sworn. — u I voted at the late general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ 1 live in Eleventh, below Girard avenue. I am a 
planemaker. I voted at about quarter after five o’clock.” 

Israel Bendel, sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I reside in Lewis street, four doors above Girard 
avenue, west side. I am a bricklayer. I voted between six and seven 
in the evening. I think I got my ticket from Mr. Weatherby.” 

John Deemer, sworn. —“ To the best of my knowledge, I voted at the 
late general election in the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for 
W. B. Reed for District Attorney. I obtained my ticket from Abraham 
Juvenal.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I reside in Girard Avenue, seven doors west of 
Tenth street. I am a morocco leather dresser. I voted at two o’clock.” 

W. H, Shoemaker, affirmed. —“ I voted at the late general election in 


39 


the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I reside in Seventh below Franklin, No. 338. I 
am a brick layer. I voted at about seven o’lock in the evening. I got 
my ticket at my house. It was left there the night before election.” 

Eli Harding, sworn .— cc I voted at the last general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I reside in Eighth below Thompson. I am in the 
employ of Powers and Weightman, chemists. I voted at about quarter 
of one o’clock.” 

Benjamin Wilson, sworn .—“I voted at the last general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .— u I resided in Marshall street below Girard Avenue. 
I am a dealer in real estate. I think I voted between twelve and one 
o’clock.” 

Adam Martin, sworn. —“ I voted at the late general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney. I gave tickets to other persons, and W. B. Reed’s name was on 
them and no body else’s.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided at Sixth street and Germantown road. I 
am an inn keeper. I can’t tell exactly when I voted. I think it was about 
the middle of the day.” 

Chas. Knox, sworn. — f< I voted at the late general election in the Eastern 
jxrecinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .— u I reside in Sixth street, above Little Poplar. I am 
a carter. I voted at about one o’clock. I got my ticket, I think, from 
Adam Martin. I voted immediately. I examined it. I voted at Tenth 
and Thompson streets, I think, at the Hall.” 

David Ambler, affirmed. —“ I voted at the late general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .—1 reside in Lewis street above Poplar, No. 20. I 
am a bricklayer. I voted between twelve and two o’clock. I got my ticket 
from the Whig head-quarters.” 

Eugene B. Law, sworn .—“ I voted at the late general election, in the 
Eastern precinct for the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Eleventh street, near Girard Avenue, 
No. 457. I voted on age. I am a clerk. I was of age on the 8th of De¬ 
cember, 1849. I voted between half past five and eight, P. M. It was 
after candle light. I got my ticket from the Whig head-quarters, in Tenth 
street, near Thompson.” 

Jos. Pilling , sworn. —“ I voted at the late general election, in the Eastern 

precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B, Reed for District Attorney.” 


40 


Cross-examined. — (< I reside in Eleventh street, above Poplar. I am a 
coal dealer. I voted between twelve and one o’clock. I have been in 
the country 26 years. I am naturalized. I have voted for 19 years. I 
was naturalized in the city.” 

Jos. Bell , sworn. —“ I voted at the late general election, in the Eastern 
precinct of the District ol Penn, for W. 13. Reed for District Attorney, I 
believe. I got my ticket from IV. Doyle , the gentleman who was examined 
here.” 

Cross-examined. — u I reside in Lewis street, above Girard Avenue. I 
am a plasterer. I voted at about two o’clock. I examined my ticket; 
saw Keyser’s name and W. B. Reed’s, and that is all I cared about voting 
for.” 

Samuel Haines , affirmed. — {< I voted at the last general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At- . 
torney.” 

Cross-Examined. —“ I reside in Tenth street, above Poplar, some ten or 
twelve doors above C. A. Masson , said to have voted in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing. I am a bricklayer, and voted between twelve and one 
o’clock.” 

Lewis M. Earned , sworn. —“ I voted at the late general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. —■“ I live in Seventh street, above Poplar. I am a 
Venetian blind maker. I voted between three and five o’clock.” 

Wm. Cook, affirmed. —“ I voted at the late general election, in the East¬ 
ern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross examined. —“ I reside at 426 North Seventh street, above Poplar. 

I was a carpenter. I voted between seven and nine o’clock, in the evening; 
it was after candle light. I got my ticket at my house.” 

Abraham Engard , affirmed. — u I voted at the late general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I live on the west side of Sixth street, below Girard 
avenue. I was a painter and glazier. I voted between six and eight 
o’clock; somewhere in the neighborhood of seven. I got my ticket from 
Mr. Abrams. I asked him for it, and he handed it to me. I unfolded and 
examined it, and walked over to the polls, and poked it in.” 

Samuel Doane, sworn. —“ I reside in Marshall street, above Poplar. 

I voted at the late general election, in the Eastern precinct of the District 
of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I am a hatter. I voted between three and four 
o’clock.” 

Adjourned to meet to-morrow morning, at 10 o’clock. 


41 


Friday, Feb. 14, 1851—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

Geo. P. Shock, sworn. — u I voted at the late general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney. W. B. Reed’s name for District Attorney was in the tickets that 
I distributed ; no other name.” 

Cross-examined. — (C I was one of the committee that had charge of the 
tickets and I examined them. The tickets were handed to me by the Whig 
Executive Committee that furnished tickets. We got them from the Ooun- 
ty—the Whig Executive Committee. It was the regular ticket. I did 
not open every one of them when I distributed them. Some of them I 
did. Those I voted myself I opened and it was the whole Whig ticket. 
I did not open and examine every ticket before distributing it. I exam¬ 
ined the tickets frequently to see that they were correct. I opened them 
in the room. I had charge of the tickets in our head-quarters, and there 
I opened tickets usually and examined them. I took every precaution to 
see that none but our own tickets went out. I reside in North Seventh 
street, about 300 feet beyond the line of Spring Garden. I was in the 
Post-office at that time. I am a letter carrier. I was there from 10 
o’clock on the day of the election. I had carried my letters that morn¬ 
ing. I did not carry out any in the afternoon. I voted some time in the 
forenoon, before 12 o’clock.” 

Henry Jordan, sworn. —“ I voted in the Eastern precinct of the District 
of Penn, at the last general election. I suppose I voted for W. B. Reed 
for District Attorney. I received my tickets from my son Charles, and 
voted the ticket I got from him.” 

Cross-examined. —“I live at No. 41 Lewis street. I am a currier. I 
voted at about 7 in the evening. It was candle light then.” 

Charles Jordan, sworn. —“ I voted at the late general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I procured my ticket from W. T. Boyle. I gave 
a ticket to my father and I procured that ticket from Mr. Doyle . He gave 
us each one. He handed one to my father and my father handed it to 
me to examine, and I examined it and handed it to him. I reside at No. 
41 Lewis street with my father. I am a clerk. I voted about 7 o’clock 
in the evening, immediately before my father. I examined my own 
ticket as well as my father’s.” 

MOYAMENSING. 

Thomas Bennett, sworn .—“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided at No. 49 Morris street. I am a cigar 
maker. I suppose it was about 2 o’clock when I voted. After dinner I 
got my ticket from a stranger to me. I am 23 years old.” 

John Austin, affirmed. —“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I reside at Mrs. Smith’s, in Christian street, between 
Seventh and Eighth. Mrs. John Smith’s. I voted between 9 and 10 
o’clock in the morning, I think. I am a gardener. 

6 


42 


James Minnis, sworn, — u I voted in'Second Ward, Moyamensing, for 
W. B. Reed for District Attorney, at the last general election.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Hughes Court, in Carpenter street below 
Eighth. It is the north side of Carpenter street. I am a laborer. I voted 
about candle light, so that I had to go home, and examine my ticket with 
my specs. I got it from Beauchamp Murray. I examined it by candle 
light when I got home, and then I went and voted the whole ticket. I 
put in the same ticket.” 

Rev. Thos. S. Malcolm, affirmed. —“ I voted at the last general election, 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I resided at 251 South Ninth street. I voted about 
ten o’clock in the morning.” 

PENN DISTRICT. 

Lewis Wunder, sworn. —“I voted at the last general election,for W. 
B. Reed for District Attorney, in the Eastern precinct of the District of 
Penn.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at 427 North Eleventh street. I am a 
clerk. I voted between five and six o’clock ; before candle light. I think 
I had my supper before I voted.” 

Henry Walters, sworn. — “ I voted at the late general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Lewis street, above Girard Avenue. 
There was no number on the house. It is the seventh or eighth door on 
the upper side of the way. I am a master plasterer. I voted sometime 
in the afternoon. I don’t recollect the hour. I don’t remember who I 
got my ticket from. I generally have a parcel of them. I examined my 
ticket.” 

Isaac H. Singer, affirmed. “ I voted at the last general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I reside at No. 443 North Eleventh street, below 
Girard Avenue. I am a carpenter. I voted about noon. I can’t say if 
it was before or after dinner. I rather think it was before I took dinner.” 

Henry Whiteman, affirmed. —“ I voted at the last general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, with the intention of voting 
for W. B. Reed, but did’nt open my ticket. I procured my ticket from 
W. T. Doyle.” . 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Lewis street, above Girard. I live with 
my family. I am a house carpenter. I voted after I eat my supper; after 
candle light. I voted and then I came away, did’nt stay long.” 

Jacob Juvenal, sworn. — <{ I voted at the last general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney. The tickets that I handed to others, to the best of my recollection 
had XV. B. Reed’s name on them. I electioneered no other ticket.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Eleventh street, south of Girard Avenue. 
I am a dealer in real estate. I voted in the afternoon, before supper. It 
was light at the time.” 


43 


Wm. Jacoby, sworn.—“ I voted at the late general election, in the 
pastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At- 
torney.” 

. Cross-examined. —■“ I resided in Sixth, below Germantown Road. There 
is no number on the house. It is ten or twelve doors below Germantown 
road, perhaps more. I voted towards evening. It was before candle 
light. I can’t tell who I got my ticket from. I examined it.” 

Matthew Campbell , sworn.—“ I voted at the late general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — “ I resided in Tenth, seven doors below Master. I 
am a weaver. I voted about 8 o’clock at night. I have been in the 

country eight years. I was naturalized in ’48. I don’t recollect the 
court.” 

George Coverly , sworn .— u I voted at the last general election in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for Wm. B. Reed for Dis¬ 
trict Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — Ci I resided in Oxford street, third door below Eighth 
I was a carpenter. I voted between six and nine o’clock in the evening. 
I went at six and came away at nine. I voted nearer nine than six. It 
was after candle light.” 

Adam Reese , sworn. — " I voted at the last general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I resided in Hutchinson st., above Poplar. There 
is no number on the house, but it is about ten doors north of Poplar. I 
am a house carpenter. I voted about one o’clock.” 

Wm. K. Deacon , affirmed.— u I voted at the last general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attornej".” 

Cross-examined. — {C I resided in Tenth, third door below Jefferson. I 
was a bricklayer. I voted about the middle of the day, sometime from 
eleven to half past twelve—before dinner.” 

Stephen Green , sworn .— <c I voted at the late general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — " I reside in Lewis street, one door below Master, 
east side. I was a cordwainer. I voted about four o’clock. I got my 
ticket from my brother-in-law, Robert Fadely, and I examined it.” 

Robert Fadely , sworn .—“ I voted at the last general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — “ I resided in Tenth, above Thompson. I am a 
cabinet maker. I think I voted between two and three o’clock. I got 
my ticket from Adam Martin. I didn’t get tickets from anybody else. I 
examined my ticket. My brother is a musician.” 

Peter Hinkle , Jr. y affirmed.—" I voted at the last general election, in 



the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — a I resided at No. 1 Hibberd street. I am a real 
estate agent. I voted about eight o’clock in the evening.” 

George Rankin , sworn. —“ I voted at the last general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Eleventh, three doors north of Thomp¬ 
son. I am a ladies’ shoemaker. I voted in the evening, between six and 
seven.” 

Alexander Rankin , sworn. —“ I have not a shadow of a doubt, that I 
voted at the late general election in the Eastern precinct of the District 
of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney. I procured my ticket 
from Mr. Weatherby.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I reside in Tenth, three doors above Thompson. I 
am a cordwainer. I voted in the evening after candle-light.” 

Martin E. Harmstead , affirmed .—“ I voted at the late general election in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided in Eleventh, third door above Girard 
Avenue. I am a publisher. I voted at eight o’clock in the evening.” 

Joseph Neilly , sworn .—“ I voted at the late general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided in Hutchinson street, three doors above 
Thompson. I am a plasterer. I don’t recollect the time of day when I 
voted; it was perhaps about one or two o’clock.” 

John Murphy , sworn. —“ I voted at the late general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney. I don’t remember examining the ticket particularly, but I got it 
from Samuel Richardet.” 

Cross-examined. — “ I reside at 439 north Eleventh street. I am a 
house carpenter. I voted at about eight o’clock in the evening. I live 
about half way between Poplar and Girard Avenue.” 

Abraham Tyson , sworn. —“ I voted at the late general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .—•“ I resided at the corner of Hutchinson and Master 
at the time. I am a grocer. I kept store there. I guess I voted about 
three o’clock. I got my ticket from a gentleman who is here, but whose 
name I don’t remember. I would know him if I saw him. I examined 
the ticket.” 

George Lehman , sworn. —“I voted at the late general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .—I resided in Sixth, about 16 or 18 doors below Ger- 


45 


mantown road, on the west side of the way. I am a moulder. I voted 
about seven o’clock.” 

William Bozorth, sworn. — U I resided in the Eastern precinct of the 
District of Penn, at the last election. I voted at the Hall at the corner 
of Tenth and Thompson. I misunderstood you. I did not vote, but the 
election was at the Hall.” 

Elias Cope, sworn. — u I voted at the last general election in the Eastern 
precinct ot the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —I resided in Master above Ninth, at the corner of 
Hutchinson. I have lived in the District these eight years. I voted 
between twelve and one o’clock. I am a carpenter. I got my ticket 
from David Wagner. I examined it.” 

George G. Shock, sworn .—“ I voted at the last general election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .— <c I resided at my father’s residence, in Seventh above 
Poplar. I was then in the dry goods business. I voted at about quarter 
past twelve o’clock.” 

C. JV*. Richardson, affirmed. — “I voted at the last general election in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“I resided in Seventh above Poplar, east side. I 
ion’t know how many doors above, but about 250 feet. I never measured 
t. I am in no business. My residence is in South Penn, Eastern pre- 
:inct.” 

Wm. Alexander, sworn .—“ I voted at the last general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Perm. I could not say for whom I 
voted for District Attorney. I got my ticket from Adam Martin. I did 
not examine it. I asked if it was the full Whig ticket, and he said it was.” 

Cross-examined. —“I reside in Master street, above Sixth ; not quite at 
the corner of Marshall street, there is a vacant lot between. I am in the 
rope business. I voted in the evening, about seven o’clock, as near as I 
can judge.” 

Jacob Steinmeiz, sworn. —“I voted at thejast general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. I can’t tell for whom I voted for 
District Attorney. I don’t know who I got my ticket from. I got two 
tickets, one from Mr. Ruff, and the other from Mr. Dingee, and I can’t tell 
which I voted. I voted one of the two. I mean Mr. Ruff, the Commis¬ 
sioner.” 

Robert Myers, sworn. — (C I voted at the last general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .— u I resided in Marshall street, above Poplar. There 
are only two or three houses between Poplar street and my residence. I 
am an oak cooper. I think I voted between four and five o’clock. I 
don’t know who I got mv ticket from. I examined it.” 

Thos. G. Coghill, sworn .—“ I voted at the last general election, in the 

Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. I think I voted the entire 


46 


Whig ticket, except the County Surveyor. I don’t know from whom I 
got my ticket.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I reside in Seventh st., below Girard Avenue. I am 
a house carpenter. I voted between twelve and one. I am not positive as 
to what ticket I voted. My intention was to vote the entire Whig ticket. 
I examined a portion of the ticket, and I am satisfied I voted for Vinyard 
and for John Keyser, and they were the men I cared most about. As to 
the rest I am not positive.” 

Re-examined .—“ I did’nt erase any name on the ticket on which their 
names were. I did not scratch any name from the ticket on which Mr. 
Vinyard’s name was.” 

WEST PHILADELPHIA. 

Mr. Campbell .—“ I will now examine Mr. McCahen, under the second 
specification, which is in reference to West Philadelphia.” Reads the 
specification. 

John J. McCahen , sworn.— u I was one of the Return Clerks at the 
meeting of the Return Judges, on the Friday after the election. Mr. 
Desmond, of the city of Philadelphia, was the other Clerk. The returns 
were made after the Judges’ names were called, and handed to the Presi¬ 
dent of the Board, who read them aloud, and I, as one of the Clerks, took 
down the amounts so read. My impression is, that I either have among 
my papers at home the tally papers on which the entries were made, or 
that they were left in the room where the Return Judges met. The general 
returns made by the Return Judges from the several Districts, were handed 
to the President of the Board of Judges.” 

Question .—“ Did you see these papers after the meeting of the return 
judges ?” 

Jlnswer .—“I saw them at the time. I can’t say that I have seen them 
since. I don’t know where they are. I called at the room, I think, upon 
the succeeding day, and the man who had charge of the room said that 
Mr. Enue had taken them. I allude to the returns made to the President. 
After the adjournment, I had in my possession the return made from 
the District of Southwark. I think I have somewheres among my papers 
a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the return judges, and I may 
have other papers, but I have not examined recently. (Witness directed 
to search for these papers.) I have been out of town and just returned 
last night. The general return when made was filed according to law.” 

Joseph Enue , sworn .—•“ I was President of the board of return judges. 
The returns were handed to me and I read them off. I filed these papers 
in the office of the Common Pleas. I filed the whole of them as made to 
me by the judges. I think I delivered them to Mr. Vinyard in person. 
Among these returns was the one from West Philadelphia.” 

DISTRICT OF PENN. 

Btnj. J. Andrews , sworn .—“ I voted at the late general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided at No. 365 North Sixth street, above Pop¬ 
lar. I am a trunk maker. I voted at half past 1 o’clock, to the best of 
my knowledge.” 


47 


Mr. Campbell .—“ I desire to give in evidence the general return for the 
office o i District Attorney. (Reads it.) It sets forth that Horn R. Kneass 
received 19,040 votes, William B. Reed 19,555 votes, W. R. Dickerson 

2033, Peter A. Browne 240, Richard Chapman 1, and Isaac R. Dicker- 
son 1. 

Lewis H. Wermar , affirmed.—“ J voted at the last general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined “ I resided at No. 524 North Sixth street, above Pop¬ 
lar. I am a wholesale variety dealer. I think I voted between 11 and 
12 o’clock, or about 12 : it was just before I went to dinner, and I go to 
dinner at 12.” 

Daniel H. Sleinmeiz , sworn. —“ I voted at the late general election! 
in the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for Dis" 
trict Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided in Sixth street, between Wager and Gi¬ 
rard Avenue. I am a clerk. I voted between 7 and 8 o’clock in the 
evening.” 

MOYAMENSING. 

Michael Fullmer , sworn .— Question .—“ Did you vote at the last gene¬ 
ral election in Second Ward, Moyamensing ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir—they would not let me vote. The outsiders said 
I was not entitled to a vote.” 

WEST PHILADELPHIA. 

Mr. W. B. Mann. — u We now offer in evidence the returns from the 
Prothonotary’s office, for the First, Second, and Third wards, West Phila¬ 
delphia, identified by Mr. Carpenter, when examined, as being the returns 
from those wards.” 

Objected to by Mr. John M. Read. 

Judge King. —“ You may begin by proving that this is a paper found 
in the Prothonotary’s office, connected with the return. It is a good 
paper as far as it goes, whether it is adequate or not is another thing.” 

Mr. Mann. —“ There is no return of the District Attorney. The 
clerks are required to make separate certificates of the return of the 
number of votes that each man received for a particular office; these are 
to be returned to the Common Pleas—some are here, but the certificate 
in regard to the number of votes cast for District Attorney is not in this 
bundle. The papers are all here, except that showing the number cast for 
District Attorney ■ we have just discovered it is not here.” 

Judge King. —“ That is based upon the tally list; and that is suscep¬ 
tible of proof.” 

Mr. Mann .—“Here is the certificate, signed by the officers of election, 
of the return of votes for the First Ward. It gives H. R. Kneass 193 
votes, W. B. Reed 108, W. R. Dickerson 5. I find it in the bundle of 
papers endorsed ‘Second Ward,’ but it purports to be for the First Ward.” 

Mr. J. M. Read.— u It is evident that these papers have been mixed 
together and used.” 

D 


48 


Mr. Mann. —“ I now offer the return of votes of Second Ward, signed 
by the officers, by which W. B. Reed is said to have received 96 votes, 
H. R. Kneass 64, and W. R. Dickerson 3. I also offer the return for 
Third Ward, West Philadelpoia, s>gned by the officers, by which it appears 
that Horn R. Kneass had 33 votes, W. B. Reed 59. We propose to prove, 
that in the aggregate, the return for West Philadelphia was only counted 
213 for Mr. Reed, instead of 263—that they omitted to count 50 votes by 
mistake.” 

Mr. Enue, recalled. —“ The day after the return, I examined and found 
there was a mistake, reducing Mr. Kneass’s majority to 35, instead of 85. 
I made the examination at the office of the Prothonatory of the Court of 
Common Pleas. I had the general returns for West Philadelphia. These 
returns we never had in our possession. I had a general return from West 
Philadelphia.” 

Question. —“ What did you compare it with !” 

Objected to. 

Judge King.— u My idea is to let Mr. Enue state the process by which 
he arrived at this result, and then the Court can judge whether the testi¬ 
mony is relevant or not.” 

Witness .• « I looked at no other paper, but the general returns from 
West Philadelphia. I took it it in my hand and added up the figures. I 
saw it in the office of the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas. 
I filed it there.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“We propose to show due diligence, in trying to find 
this paper, and then by the strictest rules of the Common Law Courts, 
your Honors will allow us to prove its contents.” 

Mr. J. M. Read. —“ We find that sometimes papers get in other 
bundles. There was a paper that could not be found, which was found 
immediately afterwards in another bundle. It proves that these bundles 
have been examined and mixed, and without the original paper, unless 
your Honors are convinced that it is destroyed or lost, you will not admit 
this evidence.” 

Judge King, to the Witness. —“ You read these off, the clerk takes it 
down, it is then summed up and forms the aggregate!” 

Witness. —“ Yes sir. There is a return from each District. We brought 
a paper that was signed by the five judges; it is written and in figures ; 
that is the paper which was handed to me, and it was taken down in 
figures by the clerks, and that paper is afterwards filed in the Court of 
Common Pleas.” 

Judge King. —“The return judges assemble and organize; each gives 
his return, and the president reads them, and the amount given to each 
candidate is put down in figures by the return clerks. This is then sum¬ 
med up and is the basis of that paper!” 

Witness. —“ Yes sir.” 

Question. —“ Is that figuring of the return clerk signed by the officers, 
to make up that paper!” 

Answer. — c< It is not signed by us. It is to make up this paper.” 

Witness .—“In the aggregate there were but 213 votes o-iven to 
Reed from West Philadelphia, instead of 263.” 


49 


Mr. J. M. Read .—“ We depend upon the paper; it is a regular election 
paper which we are entitled to see, if it can be found.” 

Judge King. —“ Ample time will be given to search for that paper. 
Let us proceed with this witness.” 

Witness .—“ In making up the general return, the clerks have blank 
forms with the names of the different Districts. For instance, commenc¬ 
ing with the city of Philadelphia, the return judge is directed to hand in 
the return for District Attorney. It was then called out and put down by 
the clerks; they were directed to add all up and they did it. It was a 
simple memorandum made by them and the clerks signed it,—not the 
return judges.” 

Cross-examined .—“I placed that paper with the others in the office of 
the Court of Common Pleas. The aggregate West Philadelphia return, 
as handed in by the judge, I deposited in the office of the Court of Com¬ 
mon Pleas. It was not sealed up; there were two or three bundles of 
them. They were all put in together.” 

Re-examined. — Question. — <c What did you announce to the clerks as 
the number Mr. Reed had received in West Philadelphia.” 

Answer .—“ 213. It was so' carried out in figures. I didn’t add it up 
and the next day in making examination and adding the figures up, I dis¬ 
covered the mistake.” 

DISTRICT OF PENN. 

Charles W. Warnock , sworn. — <£ I voted at the last general election in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at Sixth street and Germantown road. I 
am engaged in an iron foundry. I think I voted near dinner time. It 
was just as I went on my road home from the foundry. I suppose it was 
between eleven and one o’clock.” 

MOYAMENSING. 

Hugh Callahan , sworn. — <f I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last general election, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I live in Tenth street, below Fitzwater. I follow 
making cotton goods. I voted, I think, between twelve and one o’clock.” 

James W. Riley , sworn. —“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at 
the last general election. I considered I voted for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney. I obtained my ticket from Mr. Murray. I examined it.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I resided in Shippen street, near Eleventh. I am a 
tavern keeper. I voted in the afternoon.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“I now offer in evidence all the papers returned into 
the office from the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. First, the 
window list, 465 votes. I now have the tally list, and I ask your Honors 
to take some of these figures upon your notes. Canal Commissioner, W. 
T. Morrison, 372 votes, Joshua Dungan, 89 votes; Auditor General, 371 
and 90; State Senate, 371 and 91; Member of Congress, 371 and 90; 
District Attorney, 409 for Mr. Kneass, 26 for Mr. Reed, 30 for Mr. Dick- 
7 


50 


erson; Prothonotary of Common Pleas, Carpenter 425, Vineyard 41; County 
Auditor 421 and 43 ; Assembly, W. J. Jackson, 371, Peter A. Keyser, 92. 
I read from the District Attorney return the names of the officers ; Lewis 
H. Trimball, Judge ; Samuel Bardcer and George VV. Manson, Inspectors; 
W. W. Binder and John K. Hyneman, clerks. 

“ The next point to which I desire to call your attention is a mistake 
in the Fifth Ward, Kensington, of five votes. The papers connected with 
this Ward are not in the office of the Court of Common Pleas. I have 
sent, and will shortly have before your Honors, the boxes which contain 
duplicates, by which this mistake will be apparent to your Honors.” 

Tkos. Stone , sworn .— ££ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the 
last general election. To the best of my knowledge I voted for W. B. 
Heed for District Attorney. I got my ticket out of a sheet. I folded and 
examined the tickets, and took them to the polls, and voted one of them. 
I supposed each of the tickets I got had the name of W. B. Reed on them 
for District Attorney. They had at the time I took them out of the house. 
I have no doubt the ballots I voted were the ones I got.” 

Cross-examined .— ££ I reside in Shippen street, between Ninth and Tenth> 
upper side of the way. It is the second door from Ronaldson street. I 
am a carter. I voted at half-past one o’clock.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“I now offer Peter Glasgow, Beauchamp Murray, Ralph 
Robson, Matthew W. Perkins, George E. Murray, Thomas Robson, John 
Robson, Dauphin E. Matthew and Samuel E. Wallington, citizens of Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, who are petitioners to prove the simple fact of for 
whom they voted.” 

Objected to by the Counsel for the respondent, and argued by Messrs. J. 
M. Read and St. G. T. Campbell. 

Judge King.— £< I am free to say that I am reluctant to assimilate this 
proceeding to one strictly at law, between parties seeking for the vindi¬ 
cation of mere private rights. This is a great public inquiry in which 
the community are most deeply interested, bearing upon and affecting 
rights and the exercise of them, that lie at the basis of our whole govern¬ 
ment. I am unwilling to regulate such a case by the mere technical rules 
of common law evidence, applicable to the supposed interest of witnesses. 
Able jurists in our country and in that from which we derive our laws, 
have regretted the narrowness of the common law in excluding from the 
witness box, a party, having, although an apparent, yet an insignificant 
interest in the mere question of costs, directly or remotely, yet admitting 
witnesses interested by the most intense of all human feelings, swayed by 
the ties of blood, by ties of marriage, and by all the most powerful influ¬ 
ences that can operate upon the human heart. The argument upon the 
present case is based upon viewing this proceeding as analogous to a mere 
suit at law, between parties. As I have said before, the analogy is not a 
sound one. It is not a suit, but a public investigation. Even according 
to the strictest rules of the common law, the party must have a direct in¬ 
terest in order to exclude him from the witness box. These parties have 
not a direct and necessary interest. The act of Assembly imposes the 
costs directly and in the first instance upon the county. The law de¬ 
clares that £ every person who shall be subpoenaed and attend, or be ex¬ 
amined at the hearing, shall be entitled to receive the same daily pay and 
mileage, as are by law allowed to witnesses attending such court in other 


51 


t 


cases, which shall be paid out of the treasury of the proper county, or 
township, as the case may be. If the judges of such court, or a majority 
of them, shall certify that such complaint was without probable cause, the 
petitioners, and every of them, shall be liable for all the costs of such 
hearing; and it shall be the duty ot the commissioners of the proper 
county to proceed to recover the same by attachment issued from such 
court.’ ” 

The liability of the petitioners only accrues if the Court are ultimately 
satisfied that their complafnt was without color, or without probable cause. 
How then stands the case in this view of the subject? YVhile the county 
is primarily liable for costs, in a given state of proceedings the petitioners 
may be eventually liable for the same. Because in a given state of pro¬ 
ceedings the petitioners may be liable, although the county is first liable, 
shall we stretch the rule of supposed interest so as to embrace such parties, 
and shall we determine that when we are proceeding to execute duties that 
are not strictly judicial, when proceeding to execute duties more .analogous 
to those exercised by legislative bodies, shall we thus exclude the very 
witnesses who are most likely to be most cognizant of the facts % For, from 
whom would we be more likely to ascertain these facts, than from the 
petitioners themselves ? We are bound to believe that no twenty of our 
citizens would present this petition, without being cognizant of the facts. 
I am not disposed to think so badly of the community, as to believe that 
citizens would put their names to a paper charging frauds that affect the 
reputation of others, without some basis. I think I have a perfect right 
to assume that the petitioners are cognizant.of the facts upon which the 
petition is based. I am reluctant to adopt a rule so narrow as to exclude 
those that know, or ought to know, most of the complaint. In fine, I am 
inclined to admit this testimony on another ground. If, after deliberation, 
I am convinced that the position now occupied i3 unsound, the testimony 
of those witnesses can be stricken from the proceedings, We can adopt 
the course of a chancellor, in the investigation of testimony before him. 
YVhile he permits the reading of testimony apparently illegal, yet if subse¬ 
quently satisfied that it ought not to be admitted, he strikes it from the 
record, and considers the case without any reference to it. So in the pre¬ 
sent case; if, after reflection, I am convinced that the interest, which is 
supposed to exclude these witnesses is not, as I now suppose, shadowy and 
insufficient, but real and substantial, I can strike their testimony from the 
record, and not regard it. In this course there is no difficulty in the pre¬ 
sent case, because the witnesses are called to establish a simple proposition, 
to wit: that they voted at the election in Second YVard, Moyamensing, 
for W. B. Reed. If I hereafter conclude that the interest objected against 
them, ought to exclude them from being heard, nothing follows, except to 
say that the petitioners have failed to establish that so many persons voted 
for Mr. Reed, whose votes don’t appear to have been given to him by the 
return. I admit, therefore, the testimony, reserving to myself this right, 
if subsequent reflection convinces me that the ground I have taken is not 
sound.” 

Judge Campbell.— “ When the Legislature thinks proper to change our 
laws, no one obeys more cheerfully than I do, but until they do, I will 
not change them. I may have the same ideas upon this subject as the 
President Judge, but until the Legislature changes it I will not do it; that 
is above my province—it depends entirely upon them. I may think the 
ties of consanguinity in some cases are stronger than interest, and I might 


52 


as a legislator change this; but that is not a question for me sitting here 
as a judge ;*it is a question which I have no right whatever to consider. 
My duty is a simple one ; it is to determine whether the parties now pre¬ 
sented are incapacitated from being witnesses, either as parties or because 
responsible for costs, and if I believe they are either, they cannot be wit* 
nesses. I have upon a former occasion declared that the petitioners were 
parties to this case, and therefore it is not necessary for me to recapitulate 
what I then said ; but in addition to that, it is clear to my mind that these 
parties are subject to costs, and being so liable they ought not to be ex¬ 
amined as witnessess. It is true that where it is discretionary with the 
party to pay or not, he is not therefore incapacitated from being a witness; 
but this is not one of those cases. Here it is not a matter discretionary 
with them. If any discretion is to be exercised, it is to be exercised by 
this court, and this court will exercise it, if they deem that this proceed¬ 
ing is without probable cause. Whether in this case there is probable 
cause or not, can only be known on the final hearing of the case ; but it 
is sufficient that the party can be made liable for the costs to exclude him 
from being heard as a witness in this case. It is upon that principle that 
I hold that these parties now presented as witnesses ought to be excluded 
from the witness box. I therefore am totally and entirely opposed to the 
examination of these petitioners as witnesses.” 

Judge Kelley. —“ Looking to the decisions of the Supreme Court of 
the State, as the expression of the supreme law of the land, I find 
various decisions that cover the principle involved in this question. Thus, 
it has been held by that court, that a party, whose property has been 
stolen in a public hotel, or from a railroad car, or a steamboat, is compe¬ 
tent to prove the contents of his trunk or any package in which his pro¬ 
perty was contained. Again, in proceedings against the county, to indem¬ 
nify a party whose property has been destroyed by a mob, the individual 
aggrieved, although the plaintiff in the cause, has been received as a 
witness to prove the nature and extent of his loss. These apparent modi¬ 
fications of the law of evidence which excludes a party in interest from 
being heard as a witness, have been recognized from the absolute neces¬ 
sity of the case. Now, if absolute necessity admits a departure from the 
ordinary rules of evidence in these cases, how much more absolute is the 
necessity for admitting a party to prove how he gave a secret ballot, a 
thing resting, of consequence, exclusively in his own cognizance. If 
apparent interest in the one case, not simply in costs, but as to the whole 
subject, would not exclude his testimony, why should it in this, where his 
interest, if any, consists simply in a contingent liability for costs,—a lia- 
bilitj' that depends upon the opinion of the Court, after being convinced, 
from a view of the whole case, that his complaint is without justice or 
reason.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ It is material for me to have the box^ of Fifth 
Ward, Kensington, as the papers connected with that ward are not in the 
office. I want these boxes from the Sheriff—there are five of them. The 
Sheriff mentioned to me that it was impossible to designate the ones that 
belong to that ward, as the Alderman is dead. 

“ The specifications in reference to Second Ward, Moyamensing, and the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, are as to questions of fact, 
about which witnesses are called; those in reference to West Philadel¬ 
phia and Fifth Ward, Kensington, are questions of figures. My case 
closes after examining the Moyamensing witnesses,—one or two from 


53 


Penn District, and giving to your honor the means of finding this mistake 
in Fifth Ward, Kensington.” 

Beauchamp Murray , sworn. —[Petitioner.]—“ I voted at the late gen¬ 
eral election, in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Robert Murray , sworn. —[Petitioner.]—“ I voted at the last general 
election, in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Ralph Robson, sworn. —[Petitioner.]—“I voted at the late general 
election in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Matthew W. Perkins , sworn. — [Petitioner.] — a I voted at the last 
general election in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for 
District Attorney.” 

Thomas Robson, sworn. —[Petitioner.]—“I voted at the last general 
election in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Dauphin M. Matthieu, sworn. —[Petitioner.]—“I voted at the last 
general election in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for 
District Attorney.” 

William Robinson, Jr., sworn. —[Not a petitioner.]—“I voted at the 
last general election in Second Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for 
District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“I resided in Tenth, five doors below Catharine, east 
>ide. I am secretary of the Delaware Coal Company. I voted between 
half-past three and half-past four o’clock.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“This closes our case, with the exception of one or 
two witnesses from Moyamensing and Penn District.” 

Judge King. —“ When will you be ready to go on, Mr. Hirst 1” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ We think we could be ready by Monday week.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ This is very strange. At the very instant the opinion 
of the majority of this Court was given, the counsel asked that the case 
should be heard instantly.” 

Judge King. —“ I understand that Mr. Hirst asks for a week, and you 
oppose that?” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Yes sir. We have had three months on our side, and 
the learned counsel have had the same time.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I am sure you have forgotten that you have wandered 
from the specifications. We could not subpoena witnesses while the case 
was going on.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“Never was any body held to quite so rigid rules 
as those laid down for the consideration of this cause. I presume 
that now it is to take the course of every other judicial proceeding. 
The specification of the Plaintiff ’s case was known to the opposite counsel 
from the beginning. If I had filed an ordinary declaration and they had 
pleaded non-assumpsit, and had asked a week to prepare themselves, I 
think it would have been laughed out, and I humbly hope that this time 
will not be granted.” 


54 


Mr. J. M. Read .—“I came into the case but yesterday, and of course 
know very little about it; but I can see from what has transpired that it 
will take some time to present this case in such a state as your Honors can 
understand it. And we think a week is necessary to do that.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ I hope if we ask a week to prepare rebutting testi¬ 
mony, we will have it 

Mr. J. M. Read .—“ Certainly.” 

Judge King.— “I should be disposed to allow a reasonable time, but I 
am afraid this will interfere with the arrangements of the Court, take till 
next Thursday.” 

Court adjourned. 

— —— — - -- 


Thursday, February 20,1851.—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. I. 

Gamaliel G. Mayhew , called by Mr. Campbell. 

Mr. Hirst .—“ If the Court please, my friend Mr. Campbell informs me 
that the object of calling this witness is to prove for whom he voted at 
the last general election in Penn District. I have received a letter from 
Mr. Campbell, yesterday, informing me, that there are fifteen names of 
persons, who will be called as witnesses this morning, for the purpose 
of disclosing their votes. When the Court adjourned last Friday, 
it was announced, I think, that one or two would yet be called; a 
week has made some fifteen appear and there is no knowing when 
this will end, and we now lay before the Court serious objection to 
testimony of this character. I am aware that it may be said that 
this objection comes late, and I have no doubt the Court expect, and 
they shall receive a reason for our making it at this time, after having 
silently listened to evidence of this character. This is the explana¬ 
tion—that during the interval with which we have been favored by the 
Court for preparation, we have found that perhaps four out of five of the 
voters we addressed on the subject, expressly refused to be dragged into 
Court to disclose their votes. I need not say that if voters upon one side 
can be permitted to come into Court, and a question of this sort be put to 
them, it is also open to the voters on the other side to be similarly addressed, 
and instead of an election being by ballot, it would be open, and an elec¬ 
tion may chance to be decided by affidavits instead of ballots. With this 
explanation I propose to show that the question now raised has been decided 
by this Court, in 4 Pennsylvania Law Journal, 348, in an opinion de¬ 
livered by Judge Parsons. I will read it all. In that election it appeared 
that the polls were opened for some few minutes after 10 o’clock,-” 

Judge King. —“ The effect of your objection would be, that the whole 
of the testimony of the former witnesses ought to be regarded as naught. 
You can contest this on the argument, and contend that the whole should 
be stricken out; but you. wish us now to decide the whole question upon 
this point of testimony. I am in favor of going on now, and hearing 
this on the argument. You aie not compromised by this course; the 
question is still open to you, and having been agitated I suppose this ques¬ 
tion will be discussed on both sides. J3y this means you have an oppor¬ 
tunity of vindicating the citizens accused.” 




55 


Mr. Hirst. —“ 1 he remark that fell from your Honor as to the reputa¬ 
tion of these gentlemen is conclusive upon my mind, and I submit to it.” 

Gamaliel G. May hew, sworn. — * u I voted at the last general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided in Tenth street, above Thompson, upper 
side, about six or seven doors above. I am a book binder. I voted in the 
evening. I am not positive what time it was. I will not be positive 
whether it was before or after candle light. It was after I came from work. 
I voted a full ticket.” 

Lewis H. Brown , affirmed. — u I voted at the last general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — U 1 resided at No. 348 Marshall street, on the west 
side. I am a salesman in Market street. I voted between 7 and 8 o’clock 
in the evening. I voted a full ticket. I received the ticket from a 
stranger and I read it from top to bottom. There was a lamp near me. 
I read it by the light of a lamp in a drug store; I think on the corner. 
I don’t recollect the particular part of the ticket that Mr. Reed’s name 
was on. It was under the head of District Attorney or Prosecuting At¬ 
torney. I don’t recollect which. It was the regular Whig ticket.” 

Charles Cogsborough , sworn. — u I voted at the late general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at No. 34 Lewis street, below Girard 
Avenue. I am a house carpenter. I don’t recollect at what time I voted, 
I think it was near noon. I can’t sa) r if it was before or after dinner. I 
was at the polls both of these times. I can’t be positive whether it was 
in the morning or afternoon. I am certain it was before dark. I didn’t 
vote by candle light. The election was held at the N. E. corner of Tenth 
and Thompson streets. 

•Alexander W. Hennessy , affirmed .— u I voted at the late general elec¬ 
tion, in the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for 
District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — u I resided at No. 446 North Seventh street. I 
was a clerk in the tea warehouse, No. 73 Chesnut street. I voted be¬ 
tween 12 and 2 o’clock and voted a full ticket. I voted at the N. E. cor¬ 
ner of Tenth and Thompson streets.” 

Martin Hafelfinger , affirmed. —“ I voted at the late general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I resided at No. 450 North Seventh street. I was 
a clerk in Christy’s, No. 143 Chesnut street. I voted between 7 and 8 
o’clock in the evening. It was a full ticket to the best of my knowledge.” 

Benjamin Owens , affirmed. — cc I voted at the last general election, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, for W. B. Reed for District 
Attorney.” 

Cross-examined.— Ci I resided in Eleventh street, below Girard Avenue. 
I don’t think there is any number on the house; it is the 7th door; I 


56 


don’t keep house there, I boarded with Mrs. Sowerman; I had boarded 
there for three years. I am a plasterer. I voted early in the evening. I 
don’t recollect the exact time. It was after candle light.” 

Joseph Keeley , affirmed. — u I voted at the late general election, in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn, tor W. B. Reed for District At¬ 
torney.” 

Cross-examined .— u I resided at No. 18 Lewis street. I am a house 
carpenter. I voted between 8 and 9 o’clock in the evening. I voted a 
full ticket.” 

MOYAMENS1NG. 

Robert H. Gillis , recalled. — u I voted at the last general election in Se¬ 
cond Ward, Moyamensing, for W. B. Reed for District Attorney.” 

Cross-examined. — li I resided in Stewart street, near Fitzwater. I am 
a weaver. I went from home about 2 and was back about 4 o’clock. I 
was delayed a good while at the polls. I voted between 2 and 4. I was 
questioned about one thing or other. My vote was challenged and I had 
to look about for somebody to prove my residence. There were hundreds 
there that knew my residence. These things are common. I had to go 
to the bottom of the string. There may have been ten in the string when 
I went to vote. I was not long getting up again.’’ No. 472. 

J\lr. Campbell. —“ We will close here.” 


DEFENCE. 

Wm. L. Hirst , Esq. opens for the respondent as follows:—•“ This, may 
it please the Court, is an attempt to undo the general return of an elec¬ 
tion which has gone through all the forms and solemnities of the law, 
and I shall proceed in a very brief and cold manner to explain to the Court 
the evidence that will be presented on behalf of the candidate elect in 
vindication of his rights. I need not turn your attention to the fact that 
there stand on the records of this Court, two charges of fraud against all 
the officers of two districts, viz: First Ward, Moyamensing, and the 
western precinct of the District of Penn, which have been utterly 
abandoned. I shall proceed to show the Court that the other two charges 
that have been laid, and which have been attempted to be proved, are 
equally unfounded. Before I state matters in reference to the grounds 
held by the other side, I will inform the Court that upon an examination, 
partial and yet unfinished, of the masses of returns in the office of this 
Court, I have discovered in two election districts palpable errors in the 
returns. The tally list prepared by the officers of the election, the night 
after the polls are closed, is the original entry of the count. In one of 
the districts there is the number of 127 in the tally list, and carried out 
137 for Mr. Reed, which makes an error of ten votes. In another district, 
one of the wards in Spring Garden, there is a like error of three votes, 
making, so far as we have examined, the majority of Mr. Kneass 98. I 
shall proceed to inform the Court of the evidence which will be laid be¬ 
fore them, on the subject of the two districts which the Counsel have at- 



57 


tempted to impeach—I refer to Second Ward, Moyamensing, and the 
Eastern Precinct of Penn. In order to make my opening intelligible, I 
must call the attention of the Court to the fact that the return in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, is, for Mr. Reed, 91, for Mr. Dickerson, 31, and 
that the return of what is called the Whig vote, for State officers—I will 
select the Canal Commissioner—is 131. So, if we look at the general 
statements made by witnesses of votes polled, there is a slight discrepancy 
between the vote for State officers, and those returned; but if we curtail 
all but those who examined their tickets, the apparent deficiency vanishes. 
The question is whether the Whig party, as a party, polled their vote for 
Mr. Reed. In the Eastern Precinct of Penn, the VVhig vote upon the 
State ticket is 90, accounting for nearly all the witnesses who appeared 
before the Court, and the question is, whether or no Mr. Reed was sus¬ 
tained by his party to the full extent of his party vote, or whether he fell 
behind it. 

“Having stated these returns, I will proceed to refer to the case of the 
Second Ward, Moyamensing. There has been a theory spun here with 
all the delicacy and sagacity of the spider, that I think I can manifest to 
the Court can be as ‘easily brushed away. I cannot allow this theory to be 
now abandoned or departed from. It is that 317 votes were added volun¬ 
tarily and fraudulently to the lists of voters by the officers of the election 
after the election had closed. We will first show the Court by an exami¬ 
nation of the complaint that this is an after thought; the complaint itself 
contradicting the theory upon its face. The specification informed us that 
eighty odd of these 317 were undisputed. In reference to the testimony 
of Mr. Landon, who has been but one out of 1200 voters who was brought 
here, and upon whose head alone rests this theory, that the polls were 
deserted at about half past nine o’clock, and that he voted at about twenty 
minutes of ten, and that none were to be seen about there then, we shall 
overthrow it entirely. I need not say to your Honors how uncertain is 
testimony as to the time of voting, for it appears upon the face of the 
evidence of the opposite side. For instance, at two o’clock Mr. George 
and Mr. Shain both voted, and one stands No. 290 and the other 483. At 
one o’clock, Mr. J. Kelley and Mr. Thomasson swear they voted, and one 
is No. 145 and the other No. 570. I need not advert to the fact that one 
of the witnesses proved to have voted for Mr. Reed, voted at about 1000 

_Mr. Locke—and he voted at nine o’clock. We shall give your Honors 

witness after witness, till we think we have sufficiently demolished this 
testimony upon which the theory is based. We shall give the Court 
witness after witness to prove that from dark till ten o’clock, there was 
an uninterrupted stream of continual voting. I need not say that the very 
hour which the witness has said the polls were deserted is the hour in 
which they are the most thronged. We shall show that the crowd con¬ 
tinued till ten o’clock, and that more votes were polled between eight and 
ten than during any other two hours of the day; and that when the clock 
struck ten, there were voters outside clamoring to have their votes 
received: and yet upon this single witness hangs the theory which has 
already so long abused the public mind. In reference to these three hun¬ 
dred names be°ing fictitious, we shall show that many of them voted, by 
persons who saw them vote—by the voters themselves: and although 
Aid. Campbell, who has been thirty years in that Ward, could recollect 
but some eioffit, or ten, or twelve of these names, we will show by the 
Assessor of °the Ward, and upon his assessment list the names of nearly 

8 


58 


150 of them. I must be permitted to promise your Honors beforehand, 
that never in the course of a judicial investigation has there been broached 
a theory that was so easily overthrown as this will be. We shall not 
only show that the votes were actually received at the window, but 
that at the time of the first strike of ten there was received the number 
of 1223, apparent on the list of voters. We shall show by the parties 
themselves, who are those to whom your Honors will look in this case, 
and to whom you will lean unless they are impeached—we shall show 
that if ever there was an election well conducted, it was this one. Your 
Honors will find them plain men—they are not the men capable of coin¬ 
ing and issuing certificates of naturalization that were forged—not the 
men that could address the Senate of the United States with quires, of 
fictitious signatures—they are mechanics most of them, but not the kind 
of mechanics that could lay men pipes to lead to distant voters. We 
shall show that there were challenges by both sides, and that there was 
not a vote challenged by either party that was not scrupulously examined. 
There was not a moment but there were persons there to electioneer, and 
if there were false persons there, and all those who are supposed to belong 
to the party did not belong to it, they must see to that. That there were 
some five or six in that Ward I most truly believe, and perhaps will feel 
it my duty to prove. 

“ Having gone through these facts, I will now come to the Eastern pre¬ 
cinct of the District of Penn : but before I leave this branch of the case, 
I cannot but advert to one other circumstance. It was alleged by our 
friend on the other side, that out of the 1223 votes polled, but 622 were 
on the assessment list. I have to say that the greatest proportion of that 
number,—-nearly five hundred out of the six,—are names prior to 907 on 
the list, which names are not disputed before the Court in this case. I 
need not descant upon the danger of receiving persons here in an election 
where the majority is small, to decide that election by their testimony. 
I will show, moreover, that some of the parties here produced,—at least 
two of them,—actually voted for Horn R. Kneass,—their votes were 
seen to go in for him. 

c< In reference to Penn District, the number of persons who have ap¬ 
peared here, which as in Second Ward, Moyamensing, amount to the or¬ 
dinary force of that party, have stated with one accord that they have 
ail voted for Mr. Reed for District Attorney. We will show from 
returns of other Districts of the County of Philadelphia, that Mr. Reed went 
far below his ticket. We will show that in the City of Philadelphia, the 
Canal Commissioner, Mr. Dungan, received 7861 votes, and Mr. Reed re¬ 
ceived 7442 votes, a loss of 420. In the Northern Liberties, Mr. Dungan 
received 1887, and Mr. Reed 1748. In Spring Garden, Mr. Dungan 3576, 
Mr. Reed 3346. Kensingson, Mr. Dungan 2135, Mr. Reed 2053. In 
Unincorporated Northern Liberties, Mr. Dungan 166, Mr. Reed 70. In 
Richmond, Mr. Dungan 11], and Mr. Reed 104. In the District of Penn 
132 for Mr. Dungan, and 64 for Mr. Reed. In Incorporated Penn, Mr. 
Reed has received one vote over Mr. Dungan. In Southwark, 2349 for 
Mr. Dungan, and 2246 for Mr. Reed. In Moyamensing, 807 for Mr. 
Dungan, and 754 for Mr. Reed. In Passyunk, 119 for Mr. Dungan, and 
105 for Mr. Reed. In Blockley, 145 for Mr. Dungan, and 137 !D for Mr. 
Reed. In Kingsessing, Mr. Dungan 32,and Mr. Reed 23. In Germantown, 
558 for Mr. Dungan, and 419 for Mr. Reed. In Roxborough, 180 for 
Mr. Dungan, and 159 for Ivlr. Reed. In Bristol 108 for Mr. Dungan, and 


59 


3 


72 for Mr. Reed. In Oxford, 91 for Mr. Dungan, and 66 for Mr. Reed. 
In Frankford, 329 for Mr. Dungan, and 166 for Mr. Reed. In Lower 
Dublin, 167 for Mr. Dungan, and 111 for Mr. Reed. In Moreland and 
Byberry, for Mr. Dungan 90, and Mr. Reed 72. In Manayunk, 162 for 
Mr. Dungan, and 87 for Mr. Reed. So that on the final result it appears 
that Mr. Dungan received 21,305 votes, and that Mr. Reed’s deficiency 
was 1750, and yet the theory is, that in these two Districts he polled the 
entire Whig vote. On the other hand, Mr. Kneass ran about 70.0 below 
his ticket, making a difference of one thousand. Having shown that the 
theory set up by the witnesses is inconsistent with the state of feeling in 
every other part of the county, I propose to show that in Penn, as in the 
other Districts, the vote of Mr. Reed fell below the vote of the party. We 
shall show to the Court, citizens hitherto unsuspected, persons chosen and 
selected according to law, who held that election; we will have the As¬ 
sessor, the Judge, the two Inspectors, and the two Clerks of each Ward, 
all of whom are guilty or innocent, and I cannot but regret that the con¬ 
testant here, in seeking for office, should attempt to ruin and destroy twelve 
of his fellow citizens—the office is not worth such a price. But we shall 
show by these parties, who will prove, that from the time of opening to 
the closing of the polls, these votes were received, were deposited in the 
boxes, and that after the polls were closed they were counted in Penn, and 
that in that box were found, and from that box were counted the precise 
number of votes found on the return. We shall lay these facts before the 
Court, quite confident that upon the grounds presented on the other side 
we shall meet them, and upon investigating it, will utterly overthrow them. 
I will now proceed with the permission of the Court, to call witnesses to 
give evidence.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ I will begin with North Mulberry Ward, Eastern Pre¬ 
cinct, and I offer to show that in that ward the tally list signed by the 
clerks and inspectors gives W. B. Reed 327 votes, but that it was carried 
out 337, and the mistake was carried on to the general return.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ In reference to any matter of mistake, it will be proper 
to show it, it seems to me, rather by way of appeal to those who represent 
the petitioners, than by legal evidence, and any mistake of that matter 
will be corrected; but if this is based upon the supposition that the 
Counsel on the other side have a right to leave the specific matters in the 
specifications, then, if your Honors please, we humbly and respectfully 
dissent from it. So far as these mistakes are concerned, they are not 
worth a contest; but if it is to be made a stepping stone to others, we 
shall feel it our duty to make objection to it.” 

Judge King. —“ The objection can be made when the matter comes 
up.” 

Mr. Williams .—“ Then it is understood that this is to be received 
without prejudice ?” 

Judge King. —“ Yes.” 

George L. Dougherty , sworn—“ These are the returns of the last elec¬ 
tion, filed in the Prothonotary’s office of the Court of Common Pleas, for 
North Mulberry Ward, and this is for Fourth Ward, Spring Garden. 
(They are produced.) I have just brought them into Court myself. I 


60 


entered on the duties of my office in the Court ot Common Pleas, on the 
3d day of last December. I don’t know that these returns were then 
open and unsealed.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ I want to show that upon Mr. Capenter’s coming into 
office, all the returns were unsealed and opened. I will now give in 
evidence the tally list for North Mulberry Ward, Eastern Precinct, 
October 8, 1850, signed by Charles S. French and Charles S. Morrison, 
clerks. W. B. Reed received cccxxvii, and it is written three hundred 
and thirty seven and carried out 337.” 

Judge Kelley. —“This is but a summing up the tally list?’ 

Mr. Hirst .—“Yes sir! and it will be a matter of objection, that in 
some of the wards there is no tally list at all.” 

Judge Kelley. — a Either the ccxxvii or 337 is a mistake, but without 
the tally list we cannot tell which it is.” 

Mr. Williams .—“ It may have been written and the letters and figures 
with which people are familiar, may have been put down first, and the 
Roman letters afterwards.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ In order to show the error in the return, it is necessary 
to give in evidence the tally list of the other precinct. In that precinct 
W. B. Reed received 370, H. R. Kneass 222, Peter A. Browne 24, and 
W. R. Dickerson 75. The true figures in the West precinct, and the 
erroneous ones in East precinct make 707. I read in evidence the return 
of votes for the Eastern precinct; W. B. Reed 337, H. R. Kneass 229, 
Peter A. Browne 9, W. R. Dickerson 57. In the general return of that 
ward W. B. Reed has 707, H. R. Kneass 451, Peter A. Browne 33, W. R. 
Dickerson 132. 

“ I now offer in evidence the tally list of Fourth Ward, Spring Garden; 
held October 8th, 1850. W. B. Reed received ccclii,' and it is carried 
out 355. It has been 352 in two places out of three and altered, and the 
writing has been originally two and is altered to five. I will read the 
return signed by the judges and inspectors. H. R. Kneass 295, W. B. 
Reed 355, W. R. Dickerson 35, and Peter A. Browne 7. These returns 
are those upon which the general returns are based by Mr. Enue.” 

John G. Ringland , sworn .—“I reside in Second Ward, Moyamensing* 
and I am President of the Board of Commissioners of Moyamensing. I 
was on the election ground at the last election from about ten o’clock in 
the morning till the polls closed, and some time after. There were a good 
many challenges at the window during the day, but I can’t say how many 
challenged on both sides. When votes were challenged, they were gene¬ 
rally inquired into by the officers. I judge there was most voting from 
dusk till the polls closed. They were voting all the time I was about the 
window, at night, till the polls closed. They were voting very fast. I 
had the window book part of the day, and they voted so fast that I could 
not find the names on the book as fast as they came. Between half past 
nine and ten o’clock there were a great many persons about the polls—I 
would not attempt to say how many. All the evening, from dark until 
some time after the polls closed, there was a great many there. There 
was one or two bonfires in the evening, and lanterns about the windows, 
with the usual badges on. There was a bonfire just after dark that illu¬ 
minated the whole neighborhood. I don’t know about any other bonfires 



61 


that made it light. I don’t recollect any one being challenged by either 
party that was not inquired into. I tried to get Mr. McGrath’s vote in, 
but they would not take it. I think he did vote, though. This vote was 
challenged by Mr. Grimshaw. I know John Winters. I saw him at the 
polls, and to the best of my recollection he voted. I have known him 
these ten years, and think he has resided in Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
that long. He resides in Ninth, below Shippen, east side, (No. 9-17 on the 
list.) I know Andrew Vine. I have not known him in the ward a great 
while. I don’t know that he resides there now. I have not seen him 
since the last election. I don’t know of his voting at the last election 
(No. 946.) I know a person by the name of Charles Moss. I saw him 
here in Court the other day—(No. 1075.) He did reside in Second Word, 
Moyamensing. 1 believe he resides there now. I see him every two or 
three days. I knew a person in the ward named John Hill, and only one. 
He resides in the city now, I believe. He then resided in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing”—(No. 1088.) 

Mr. Campbell .—“ There are two of them, one is No. 152.” 

Mr. Hirst .— u We shall prove the other.” 

Witness.—“ I know Joseph Sellers. I was present when he voted at 
the election. I gave him the ticket—all the tickets I gave out that day 
had Mr. Kneass’s name on them. He made some alteration in the tickets. 
He scratched one of the Commissioners and inserted another name. I 
watched Mr. Sellers, and I thought he voted the ticket—whether he went 
through any legerdemain or not I can’t say. My impression was at that 
time, and is yet, that he voted for Mr. Kneass. He always professed to 
be a democrat. I know one Thos. McCloskey in that ward. [No. 934.] 
I saw him in Court this morning.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell.— u I went there at about 10 in the 
morning. I didn’t take the book with me. It was there. I think Mr. 
Fagan had it. I remained there from that time till just after dusk. I 
went a short distance from the polls to get some refreshments, with Mr. 
Murray, who was on the other side of the window. I don’t suppose we 
were gone more than half an hour. I stood as close as I could get against 
the window and I could see inside. I could not say how many challenges 
occurred in the course of the day. I saw Mr. Fletcher challenge a good 
many persons—Mr. Joshua Fletcher. I could safely say there was a 
dozen, and there might have been probably the saifte number on my side 
of the window. There may have been more or less. There were some 
two or three, I believe, sent away to produce their papers. I don’t recol¬ 
lect their names. A gentleman named Mr. Lees was challenged, who 
lives opposite to where I do, and I vouched for his residence myself. I 
don’t think we got it in that time. I don’t care what his politics were, 
if he was a voter I would vouch for him. I can’t say how often persons 
were called to vouch for the residence of offered voters; in the excite¬ 
ment of an election day it is hard to recollect these things. I don’t re¬ 
collect whether Mr. McSorley took my book when I went to get refresh¬ 
ments or not. I think I got it when I came back, but I won’t be positive. 
I think I had it after candle light. It was just after dusk when I went to 
get refreshments. My impression is that I had the book afterwards. I 
was there till 11 o’clock at night. I was not at the window when the 
polls closed, but was in the neighborhood of the polls. I returned to the 
window after I had been away. I can’t say exactly how long it was after 


62 


I went away from the window before the polls closed, it may have been 
a half or three quarters of an hour. That day I was at or about the win¬ 
dow nearly all the time. I might have seen George Ash vote, but I don t 
recollect that name. I may know Mr. Ash if I were to see him. It would 
be impossible for me to say who was the last man I ticked upon my book. 
I could not say who was the last man I saw vote. They voted very fast 
after dark. I am not very familiar with the names of people in the ward. 
I don’t know Mr. Landon. I think I have resided in the ward three years, 
and I lived in the ward before that. I have been in and out of Moyamen- 
sing for the last ten years. I don’t think I can give the nan^ of any one 
person whom I saw vote. John Winters resides in Ninth, third or fourth 
door below Shippen. His place of business is in Fifth, above Ghesnut. He 
is an upholsterer at Cowperthwaite’s. I saw him at the polls. I think he 
voted, and if you call him, that he will tell you so. I believe he voted while 
I had the book. I think it was late in the afternoon. I am not positive, 
but I recollect distinctly seeing him. I did not see Andrew Vine vote. He 
resided at Seventh and Shippen at that time. I know him. He does not 
reside there now. I think I was at the window when Mr. Winters voted. 
I did not leave with him. I don’t recollect whether Mr. Vine voted at 
the same time. All I know is that there was a man by that name lived 
in the ward. I last saw him in the ward sometime last fall, previous to 
the election. He kept a grocery store at Seventh and Shippen when I 
knew him. I believe he is in New York now. I have heard so, but 
don’t know of my own knowledge. He lived in a house that belonged to 
my father-in-law, and I saw him in the house. I don’t know that that 
was the last house he resided in, in the citv. I don’t know when he 
ceased to be a tenant of my father-in-law, whose name is McMullen. I 
think John Hill is in the employ of Andrew C. Craig & Co. in the city— 
he is the person to whom I referred. I don’t recollect at what time he 
voted, or whether he voted at all. I don’t recollect that I was at the 
window when he voted. It would be an utter impossibility to tell who 
voted while I was at the window. When I went there I assisted others 
in ticking off the names as they voted. I took the book when I went 
there. I don’t recollect if Mr. Hill voted while I was at the polls—he 
may have done so. I know of no other one than he who is in the employ 
of Andrew C. Craig & Co. I gave Joseph Sellers a ticket. He may have 
had others, but I didn’t see others. He scratched a name off the Com¬ 
missioners’ ticket, and put the name of Jacob J. Snyder on. I didn’t see 
him unfold the rest of the tickets. The string must have been untied to 
get the ticket out, for it was twisted up very tight. I saw him write the 
name. He did it some five or ten feet from the window. I think it was 
near the curbstone. Mr. Sellers was always a Democrat till he embraced 
Native Americanism, but he was always a Democrat in State and National 
affairs. I have heard him say so.” 

Re-examined .—“ During the time I was away from the window, in the 
evening, I was sometimes close to it and sometimes some 10, 20 or 40 
feet from it. I was about the neighborhood all the time, and could see a 
crowd around the window where they were voting. I may have been 
round the corner some of the time. I can’t be positive as to the time when 
Mr. Winters voted. I recollect distinctly seeing him there and speaking 
to him. I am not positive as to the time I voted myself. I don’t know 
whether I voted in the morning or afternoon. I recollect voting during 


63 


the day. I think Mr. Winters voted before dark, but I can’t state any 
time before that. I can’t say how many challengers there were about the 
windows. Mr. Joshua Fletcher was there, and very active. He is a bro¬ 
ther to the Alderman. He does not live at the Alderman’s house. He 
resided in Erie street at the time. He now resides in Penn District. I 
heard Mr. Grimshaw challenge some. I don’t recollect how many. Robert 
Murray challenged some. He and Mr. Grimshaw were the two chief men 
at the window on their side. I don’t recollect any instance of partiality 
shown when any one was challenged.” 

Cross-examined.—“ William McMullen, a step-brother of my wife, was 
one of the inspectors.” 

Joseph P. McSorley , sworn.— u I was on the ground during the election 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing. It was held in Catharine street, above 
Eighth, at the house of John McFalls. He is the Assessor of that Ward, 
it was held in the kitchen part of the house, on the lower floor of the back 
building. I was deputized by Mr. McCloskey, as one of the Sheriff’s posse. 
I think he is keeper of the debtor’s apartment. I went on the ground before 
the polls were opened. I had to go to work in the morning, and when 
I went round there, two or three friends coaxed me to stop, and I did stop. 
I was there at or about the time the polls opened. I remained there off 
and on up to twelve o’clock in the day, then I went away, and came back 
again. I could not say how long I remained away, but I came back in 
the afternoon, and I stopped there off and on from then till after night. I 
went down to Southwark with Mr. Darnell during the afternoon, and came 
back again. I could not say at what time we came back, but I remained 
then till dusk ; then I went away to fetch down a neighbor of mine to vote. 
I brought him down, and then I remained there till after the polls closed. 
After that I was called by Alderman Fletcher to go up toward South street. 
We went up there, and I guess I remained till after two o’clock, round the 
District, one part of the time I was in the city, and I believe I went home 
about two o’clock. There was a good string of voters there from after 
dark till the polls closed ; I did not observe it if there was not, for I did 
not notice that the polls were vacant at any time. I can’t say positively 
that the voting was continually going on from dark till ten o’clock ; so far 
as I can say, they were going pretty fast, they appeared to be going up, 
and there was a great many of them from dark till ten o’clock. From half 
past nine till ten o’clock, the polls were not deserted ; there were a good 
many about there. I could not say it was crowded. I can’t say if voting 
was going on freely between half-past nine and ten o’clock, for I was not 
at the polls. It is almost impossible for me to say at what part of the 
ground I was at that time, for I did not make any memorandum of it, but 
to the best of my knowledge I was between the corner and the polls. I was 
a little above Eighth streeet. I was running about a good deal during the 
day. There were lights about the polls; there was a bonfire on the lot 
opposite the house. I saw lanterns before and after the polls closed. 
I know two persons by the name of George Brown . I did not see one 
vote late in the evening, but he came to me and told me he did vote; that 
was in the evening. 1 saw him at the polls in the evening. I can’t say 
exactly the time. [No. 1215 on the list.] I knew George Girl. I have 
known him since he was a child. I believe he has been in the Ward ever 
since he was born. [No. 1066.] I know two persons named Jas. Gorman ; 
one I was a schoolmate with ; there he is in the court room. He lived 
next door to my father some years ago. My father has moved out of Second 


64 


Ward now, and lives in Third Ward. I could not say when I saw him 
last ; could not say if it was within the last six months or a year.” [Nos. 
647 and 971.] 

Cross-examined .— u I was appointed on the morning of the election to 
be one of the five to take care of the polls during the day, or to keep the 
peace. I was close alongside of the window part of the time. I took 
charge of the book there—the Assessor’s list. I got it from Mr. Ringland 
or Mr. Curley. I suppose I kept it about an hour. I can’t say at what 
time of day it was. It was before dinner. I hadn’t the book at night, 
and don’t know who had. I live in the ward, and voted in the morning 
I think, but I would not be positive as to the time. I took a kind of 
dinner that day. It was before dinner. One George Brown lives in a 
small street called Essex street, I think, just above Eighth, between Chris¬ 
tian and Catharine. I can’t say what business he follows. I have been 
to see him. I can’t say if he owns the house he lives in. He has a 
woman there who calls herself his wife. I never was in the house but 
twice, once with a shop mate of mine, and once by myself. I don’t know 
when I last saw him. I can’t say when I visited him by myself. I went 
to ask him some questions in regard to this shop mate of mine, and in 
reference to himself. He kept house there. Either him or his wife. He 
resides there and lives with her as his wife. His house is in this small 
street, one or two doors above Christian. The other Geoge Brown did 
reside in Flower street at one time. I can’t say when he resided there. 
I never was in his house but on one occasion, but can’t say how long ago 
it was. I saw him on the evening of the. election. I don’t know where 
he lives now. I may have seen him since, but don’t recollect it. George 
Girl resided, when I knew him, at the corner of Seventh and Fitzwater. 
I think he resides there now. One James Gorman resides now in Catha¬ 
rine between Flower and Ninth streets, north side. The other one, when 
I knew him, resided in Seventh between Baker and Shippen, west side, 
next door to my father’s. The first one is in Court now. I can’t say 
when I last saw the other one, nor when he left Seventh street. He 
may live there now for all I know. I am married now. My father 
lives in the Third Ward. He lived in Second Ward some years ago. 
His first name is William. I don’t think the last James Gorman knows 
me, for I was very small when he knew me.” 

John Dubassee , sworn .—“I reside in Second Ward, Moyamensing, and 
have ever since I was born, thirty-one years on the 13th of last June. 
I was on the election ground at the last election. I was one of the 
Sheriff’s officers. I was there from before the polls opened till after they 
closed. I left the ground at about half past ten o’clock. I went with 
Alderman Fletcher to the corner of Eighth and South streets to keep the 
peace there. According to the looks of the polls, the voting was very 
active from sundown till the polls closed, and then there were more voters 
on the ground and at the window knocking. I should say the voting was 
most active from sundown till 10 o’clock. I was off and on all day,°from 
the corner past the window. I could not see in the room where the offi¬ 
cers were. I did not take that much attention to see. According to the 
crowd around the window, the voters were coming in at night as°fast as 
the officers could write them down.” 

Question by Mr. Hirst.—^ Can you say from your own knowledge how 
many votes could be taken in a minute ?” 


65 


Answer. “ Yes, sir. I timed it night before last eleven in a minute. 
Mr. Fagan, Secretary to the Board of Commissioners of Moyamensino*, and 
John McFall helped me. Mr. Fagan was the writer. I can’t say°whe- 
ther there were challenges at the window on each side; it was not my 
place to see to that ; it was the duty of the window committee. I know 
a man named George Brown in Second Ward, Moyamensing. He lives 
in Essex street, between Catharine and Christian. [1215.] I don’t know 
Charles Nelson. I know there is a man who goes by the name of Lea 
Bunker in the ward; he is a Congressman —what we style a loafer. By 
a loafer, I mean a man that is very dissipated and has no trade and no 
home. He professes to live in the ward. There are a great many people 
have homes in cellars in Moyamensing. I have seen him in a cellar and 
taken him out of a cellar to the watch-house.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I have seen no book in connection with this mat¬ 
ter. We timed by a watch to see how many votes could be taken in a 
minute. We did it to satisfy our own curiosity. Nobody told us to do 
it. We agreed to do it night before last, about two minutes before we did 
it. We were at the N. E. corner of Eighth and Catharine streets. We 
did it to see how fast a man might write them. It had no reference to 
this matter—it was totally independent of it. I did it with no reference 
to how many could have been taken at this election. Mr. McFall had the 
watch. There were no voters there. I said we could see how many 
names we could write in a minute.” 

John McFall , sworn. —“ I am assessor of Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
the election was held at my house. I was at the election from the opening 
to the closing. I was the principal part of my time inside. I was out some¬ 
times. The voting was most active after night, and I should suppose it was 
most crowded from eight till ten o’clock. At about half-past nine, I 
suppose that about the polls and the corner, there must have been about 
two hundred people, and there was still a crowd there till after ten o’clock. 
There were so many there that I had to put them out of the house. The 
polls were light between nine and ten; they were lighted by bonfires in the 
vacant lot opposite Catharine street. There were challenges on each side 
during the day, but there was little challenging done altogether. I never 
saw less done at an election than on that day. Challengers were present all 
the time on both sides; I could not tell how many; there were sometimes 
two—three—a dozen or a half dozen. No vote that was challenged was 
received without investigation, unless the inspectors knew the persons. 
Vouchers were produced in several cases, who swore they knew the party. 

I have been assessor three years. I made the assessments for 1850, and 
the extra assessment for the same year also. The assessments made by me, 
were made by personally visiting the residences of the citizens of the 
ward. The extra assessment list was made at my own house, which is the 
ward house. It was made upon the Sheriff’s proclamation. The persons 
whom I assessed in the extra assessment personally appeared before me.” 

[Book containing the assessor’s list put in his hand.] 

Question. —“Look at James O’Neil’s name, did you assess him'?” 

Answer .—“Yes sir, in the original assessment (No. 1120 on the list of 
votes.) There is a James O’Neil in Carpenter below Eighth, James O’Neil, 
Milton below Eleventh, James O’Neil, laborer, Seventh below Shippen, 
James O’Neil, weaver, Tenth below Milton.” 

Question. —“ How many families named Norton are there?” 

9 


66 


' Answer. — c£ There are several; James Norton, cordwainer, Shippen 
above Seventh. I visited him at his own house. John Norton, cord¬ 
wainer, Shippen above Seventh, Michall Norton, cordwainer, Shippen 
above Seventh, Patrick Norton, laborer, Christian above Eighth. On the 
extra assessment is John Norton, laborer, Lisle and Shippen, Michael 
Norton, do. The last two came to my house. I didn’t visit their resi¬ 
dences, so that I visited the residences of four, and saw two personally— 
there are six altogether. John Connelly is here, laborer, Bedford above 
Seventh, (No. 1102 on the list of votes), Wm. Long, on the original as¬ 
sessment, victualler, Catharine above Morris, (No. 1097), Wm. Morgan, 
original assessment, weaver, Lebanon below Fitzwater, (1108), Jeremiah 
Manning, extra assessment, laborer, Stewart below Catharine, (909), Wm. 
McCormick, original assessment, weaver, Milton below Eleventh, (911), 
Charles McColgan, extra assessment, laborer, Shippen and Seventh, (912), 
James Boyle, extra assessment, laborer, Carpenter and Ninth streets, (914), 
Owen Gallagher, extra assessment, laborer, Marryatt’s Lane, (916).” 

Mr. Brown. —“I should like to know what this is all about. We all 
knew long ago that these were on the Assessor’s list—nobody denies it. 
How is this to touch this issue ? What do you propose to do ?” 

Mr. Hirst. — ££ It was deemed at one time material to raise up the idea 
that 300 fictitious names of persons unknown, with some five or six excep¬ 
tions, were put upon the list of voters. Aid. Campbell was called to show 
that fact—so was Andrew Miller; I propose to show by the Assessor that 
he not only knows these men, but visited some hundred and fifty of them 
in their houses.” 

Judge King. — ££ The assertion was that six hundred were not found on 
the assessment list, and that other persons were inserted as voting who 
never voted. I should rather let you go on through.” 

Judge Kelley. — ££ I understand the witness to have sworn generally 
that he made the regular assessment by calling at the house of the indi¬ 
viduals, and that he made the extra assessment by the persons calling on 
him at the Ward house. Having sworn generally to that fact, he is now 
going over and proving particular individuals.” 

Judge Campbell.— ££ When Mr. Miller was examined, he was asked to 
look at the copy of the list of voters, beginning at 907 and running down, 
and to tell how many he knew. I think the same question was asked 
Aid. Campbell.” 

Mr. Hirst reads.from Aid. Campbell’s testimony.—[p. 31.] 

Judge King. — ££ I think it would take less time if you were to go on.” 

Mr .Hirst, to the witness.—“ Turn to John Duffy, on the extra assess¬ 
ment list, and read it.” 

Witness. — ££ John Duffy, laborer. Lisle and Fitzwater, [No. 918 on the 
list of votes]. James Dougherty, butcher, Eighth above Catharine, [919]. 
Henry McElwee, extra assessment, laborer, Stewart above Christian; I 
saw him personally, [921]. James McGinnety, [922] laborer, Christian 
above Ninth. ^ [William Claver passed.] Samuel McGowan, dealer, 
Seventh above Shippen; I assessed him at his own house, [924]. Andrew 
McQuillan, Seventh and Bedford, [925]. I assessed him at his own house. 
Patrick McCahen, laborer, Bedford below Eighth, [926]. John McCahen’ 
laborer, Seventh above Shippen, [927]. [Patrick McGargan, 928, passed.] 


67 


[John McUiick passed]. Patrick O’Brien, original assessment, Cedar above 
Tenth, [932]. Thomas McCloskey lives in the Ward. I know him per¬ 
sonally, [No. 934]. He resides in Seventh below Shippen. Robert Brown, 
Tenth below Catharine, [935]. William Craig, weaver, Shippen above 
Seventh, [938]. John R. Thompson, Eighth below Christian, [941]. 
Anthony Vance, Morris below Fitzwater; it ought to be Morris below 
Catharine, [943]. Calaghan McCarthy, Seventh below Shippen, [944]. 
Andrew Vine, Seventh and Shippen.; I know him personally, [946]. John 
Winters, upholsterer, Ninth below Shippen, [947]. John Price, Baker 
below Eighth [948]. Michael Porter, Lisle and Shippen, [949]. Red¬ 
man Penable, Baker below Eighth, [950]. James O’Neil, one is Tenth 
below Milton; there are six of them.” 

Mr. Hirst, —“Two have voted out of the six; this one is 952.” 
[Owen McQuade passed.] 

Witness, — a Michael Lamb, weaver, Carpenter, above Tenth, [955 and 
140]. John Robbins, Shippen, above Tenth, [957]. Thos. Shannon, Tenth, 
above Christian, [958]. George Manley, broker, Ninth, below Fitzwater, 
[963]. [James Nell]. Here is James Nell and Jas. Neillis. Jas. Neillis, I 
know personally. He lives in Milton, below Eleventh, [964]. James 
Leiper, cordwainer, Morris, below Christian, [965]. Edward Quinn, 
laborer, Tenth, below Christian, [966]. William Kernan, Sr. and Jr., 
Flower, above Catharine, [968 and 969], Morris Henry, Stewart above 
Tenth. I know him to live there now. Milton, above Eleventh it is 
here—it ought to be below Eleventh, [972], Edward McCue, Milton, 
below Tenth, [980], John Murtland, Carpenter, below Eighth, [981J. 
Charles Green, tailor, Fitzwater, above Hubbell, it ought to be. He lives 
now in Catharine, above Eighth, [983], Simon Farran, Marryatt’s lane, 
below Ninth, [984].” 

Judge Kelley. —“ I don’t understand the Assessor to swear he knew 
them personally.” 

Judge King. — u It leaves the question precisely where it was before.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“I say that no such men came and deposited the 
votes as are there given. The way to answer that is to prove that they 
did come.” 

Judge King. —“ My disposition is to extend every fair indulgence. You 
have examined him on so many, and now you can give him the list and 
let him mark the rest that he knew.” 

Witness is directed to do so. 

Witness. —“ I was present, inside, from the time the election opened 
till it closed. I was out sometimes, but generally speaking 1 was there. 
I understood that there were 1223 votes polled on that day at the time 
the polls closed. I understood it there—inside of the polls—after they 
were closed.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ I would suggest that, provided it is intended to exa¬ 
mine this witness as to anything within the walls, the other officers should 
not be present during his examination.” 

Mr. Hirst. —•“ The Court will decide.” 

Mr. Tyler. —“ It is a matter of taste.” 

Judge King.— “ Let it be done.” 


68 


Judge Kelley. —“If it is urged on the one side and not objected to on 
the other, I don’t see any reason why they should not go out.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“It is objected to.” 

Judge Kimg. —“It is decided.” 

On the suggestion of Mr. Hirst the testimony on this point will begin 
on Monday morning. 

Witness cross-examined. —“ To make the general assessment, I visited 
the houses. To make the assessment for 1850 I would have to do it in 
’49. I suppose I might have commenced about the first of November—it 
was within twenty or thirty days, one way or the other. I visited the 
houses of all those whose names are on the general assessment. I know 
the residence of a gentleman by the name of Trappier, and think I would 
know him if I saw him.” 

Question. — “You visited his residence in November, ’49, and assessed 
him there ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t say that. I might have done it, but am not certain. 
I think I did.” 

Question. —“ Does the same uncertainty apply to all the other voters ?” 

Answer. —“ It does not.” 

Question. —“ You visited the house of Garret Ruth in November, ’49 }” 

Answer. —“ I doffit say I did. It might have been December. I went 
to his house in Moyamensing, and assessed him to the best of my know¬ 
ledge.” 

Question. —“ Do you speak with the same certainty of that as any of 
j.he others'?” 

Answer. —“ To the best of my knowledge, of course, when I don’t 
know them personally.” 

Question .—“ How soon after that did you make up your list ?” 

Answer. —“ In January or February. I am not certain which.. I re¬ 
turned that to the County Commissioner’s office. I think the extra assess 
ment list commenced on the 24th of September.” 

Question. —“ How long was your room open to receive the names of 
persons who were to be on the extra assessment list ?” 

Answer. —“ I think I commenced at three and closed at nine, except 
when they went to dinner or something of that kind. I think it was four 
or five days. I returned that to the County Commissioner’s office. I 
cannot be positive as to the number that the extra assessment list consisted 
of, and I can’t be positive as to how many I assessed altogether. I think 
there is something like 1350 in the original, or somewheres about there. 
I know some of those whom I pointed out to Mr. Hirst, on the assessment 
list.” 

Question. — “Take the last 211 names on the list of voters, and tell who 
there is that is either assessed or that you know, commencing at 1012?” 

Answer .—“I know, I think, a John Woods. [1060.] He lived in a 
small street called Hall street, it is below Tenth, and between Christian 
and Carpenter. On the assessment list it is ‘John Wood, oysterman 


69 


Tenth street, below Carpenter,’ but it is in this small street. I know John 
Duddy. [1147.] He lives in Catharine street, below Ninth. I don’t 
know his business. I know him when I see him. I know a person named 
George Brown, who says he lives in Essex street, above Christian. [No. 
1216.] I don’t think } T ou will find him on the Assessor’s list. I know a 
person named John Friel, but this is John Field here; don’t know John 
Field. I believe that is all of these names that I know. Idon’t know that 
I know more than one John Connelly. I don’t say that I know him, but 
his name is on the Assessor’s list. I can swear that those whose names are 
on the assessment list, resided where it says, at that time, of the assessment.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ The name of John Connelly was given to your Honors 
by Mr. Hirst as No. 1103 ; if he looks at 852 he will find the same name.” 

Witness .—“ I know George Brown. He said he lived in Essex street. 
I saw him around the polls that night, between the hours of eight and ten. 
I have seen him several times since the election.”. 

Question .—“ Is he a known resident of Moyamensing ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t say that. I saw him about a week ago.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ The same name is No. 96.” 

Adjourned to meet on Monday next, February 24th, at 10 o’clock, A. M. 


Monday, Feb. 24, 1851—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

John McFall, recalled. —Cross-examination continued. 

Question. —“You mentioned on Thursday that you made your assess¬ 
ment for 1850, shortly after the election, in the beginning of November, 
and that you made it by visiting the houses, did you'?” 

Answer. —“ Yes sir.” 

Question. —“ Did you do the same thing with regard to 1851'?” 

Answer. —“ Yes sir.” 

Question. —“Isthat your assessment book for 1851'?” [Book shown him 
and put in evidence.] 

Answer. _“ Yes sir, it is. It was sent to the County Commissioners.” 

Re-examined.— u I made the assessment for the present year in the com¬ 
mencement of November. I suppose ; I am not positive as to the time— 
and ended in the beginning of January.” 

Question. —“ As to the election—at what time did the election open.” 

Witness. —“Between eight and ten,—I am not positive as to the time. 

It closed at ten o’clock in the evening. William McMullen took the 
tickets from the voters during the day, principally, and Mr. Megary, some¬ 
times. As the tickets were received they were deposited in the ballot 
boxes'. I held the Assessor’s list principally. I was there during the 
whole of the election. The tickets that were voted remained in the 



70 


ballot boxes as deposited. There were challenges, and challengers on 
both sides.” 

Question. — “ Were votes when challenged examined'?” 

Answer. —“ No sir.” 

Question. —“ Suppose the voter was challenged, was his right to vote 
examined into V 9 

Answer. —“ Yes sir, if he was challenged outside.” 

Question. —“ After the polls were closed, what was first done by the 
officers'?” 

Answer. — <£ They first fixed the tally list. There were some where the 
numbers were not carried out, and the numbers were carried out—there 
was some mistake in the carrying over of the sheets, and the numbers 
were numbered afterwards. Some leaves were skipped. Voting was so 
fast that they could not number them between the hours of seven or 
eight and ten o’clock.” 

Question. — u Was the name of any person added to that list of voters 
that hadn’t voted at the election V 9 

Answer .—“ No, sir. As soon as the list of voters was numbered out 
the number was declared. It was 1223. I was there from the closing of 
the polls till the number of votes was announced.” 

Question —“ Are you positive when you say that no name was added 
of any one that hadn’t voted V 9 

Answer. — cc Yes, sir. I remember a person by the name of William 
Bradford voting. He voted between 8 and 10 o’clock, in the evening. 
[No. 1194- on the list of voters.] 

Question. —“ During the election, was there anybody in the room but 
the officers, till the polls closed'?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, there was not. After the polls were closed, I was 
in and out of the room from the time they began to count off till they 
finished.” 

Question .—“Do you recollect a person by the name of Vertine voting, 
and what was said V 9 

Answer —“ There was a person by the name of Vertine, and one of 
the clerks inside said he was no relation of his. [No. 1090.] One of the 
clerks was named Wurteim. I am not positive as to the time this man 
voted—it was night.” 

Question .—“ Were you present when the box was opened for county 
officers V 9 

Answer .—“ I was present. I assisted to open some of them. I counted 
none.” 

Question. —“From the time the polls closed until the counting was 
finally finished and the boxes sealed up, was anybody in the room V 9 

Answer. —“Yes, sir. Joseph Enue was. He came between 8 and 10 
o’clock. I went after him. It was in the evening, either Wednesday or 
Thursday, I am not positive as to the time. It was on the same night that 
the boxes were sent to Alderman Fletcher. Nobody else but Mr. Enue 


71 


was in the room from the time the poll closed till the counting was en¬ 
tirely finished. Mr. Enue was there before the votes were counted off, 
and not afterwards. The reason I went for him was, that the clerks in¬ 
side didn’t understand which box the papers should go into, and I went 
for him to see, and he said it didn’t make any difference.” 

Question .—“ At the time the clerks asked you to go for Mr. Enue, were 
the votes counted off ?” 

Answer. —“No, sir. The amendment, the commissioners, and the 
county officers, were counted off, and I am not positive as to the State 
ticket or the Marshal of Police being counted off. I don’t think they were 
though.” 

Question .—“In what order were they counted off 1 ?” 

Answer. —“First, Amendment; then, Commissioners, County Officers, 
State Officers, and Marshal of Police.” 

Question. —“ Did Mr. Enue come back with you 1” 

Answer. — “ No sir. He came afterwards and went in the room. At 
the time he went into the room they had not finished counting off. I am 
not positive as to what they were counting then—whether it was State 
Officers or Marshal of Police. The reason I went to Mr. Enue was that 
they wanted information as to which was the right box to put the papers 
in. He was suggested because he was acquainted with carrying on elec¬ 
tions, and knows more about them than any one in that neighborhood. I 
am not positive if they counted off the Amendment down stairs or not. 
They counted off the balance up stairs. The counting was finished up 
stairs in a private room. It is a room I have for meetings. It was not 
used by the family. There was no occasion for any of the family 
going in it. They went up in that room at daylight in the morning. 
They went there because the voting was done in the kitchen, and I wanted 
the kitchen for my own use, to get something to eat. The officers of the 
election carried the ballot boxes up. I was down stairs at the time they 
finished counting off. It was between two and three o’clock in the morn¬ 
ing. I think it was Thursday, and the counting and finishing the papers 
was continued up to this time. During all of this time not more than 
one of these officers was away from the room at a time. They were not 
absent from the house further than the yard to the best of my knowledge. 
When meals were ready during the day they left the room and eat down 
in the kitchen. Four of the officers went down stairs, while Mr. Don¬ 
nelly watched the boxes. During the election day they did’nt eat any¬ 
thing at all but what was fetched in to them. From the first to the last, 
the ballot boxes were always under the eye of the officers, or one or more 
of them. All the care was taken in counting off the ballots that there is 
at any general election that I ever saw. I was not present when the 
boxes were sealed up.” 

Question .—“Were any tickets changed or substituted from the ballot 
boxes during the time you were present ?” 

Answer. —“ No sir, not to my knowledge. I was standing at the table 
when I was in the room.” 

Question. —“Could any tickets have been changed or substituted from 
the ballot boxes without your knowledge in your presence ?” 


72 


Answer. —“ They could not. During the day Wurteim was sick, on 
the election day, while the votes were coming in. The inspector, Megary, 
kept his list of voters while he was enabled to do it. I won’t be positive 
as to Megary’s hand writing V 9 

Cross-examined by Mr. Brown. — Question. —“ Before we come to this 
subject of the election, allow me to ask where this test election was held 
some four or five days ago V 9 

Witness. —“ What election V 9 

Mr. Brown. —“ The one spoken of by Dubassee.” 

Witness. —“I never was at any election.” 

Question .—“ Were you last week with Dubassee and others engaged in 
taking down a number of votes V 9 

Answer. —“ No, not any number of votes.” 

Question. —“ A number of names V 9 

Answer. —“ Yes sir. That was at my house. Fagan, Dubassee and 
myself were there. If there were any others, I can’t say. I am not posi¬ 
tive as to others. We three were there. I can’t tell when it took place.’* 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I would rather my friend would enquire as to the exam¬ 
ination in chief. I object to this.” 

Objection overruled. 

Witness. —I am not positive as to the time. I think it was last Tuesday 
or Wednesday. I am positive that us three were there, there might have 
been more, but I don’t remember them.” 

Question .—“How, if you cannot tell the day, to say nothing of the 
hour when this took place, nor be positive as to the persons present, how 
is it that you speak with certainty as to the precise time when the votes 
were given at the election V 9 

Answer. —“ Because I paid no attention to that, it was passing matter 
in the bar room, and I never thought of hearing of it afterwards, it was at 
night, but I can’t say what time it was, it was between eight and twelve 
o’clock. Fagan did the writing 5 there was no clerk about it. He took 
down eleven names.” 

Question .—“ At whose instance was it that you got together, and em¬ 
ployed yourselves on Wednesday or Tuesday night last, in that way V 9 

Answer. —“ There was no employment about it—it was only passing 
matter in the bar-room. There was no object about it, only to satisfy our¬ 
selves how many could be taken down.” 

Question .—“What led you to do this 1 ?” 

Answer .—“ Curiosity often excites a man to do things. I don’t know 
how it came to pass.” 

Question. —“ Didn’t it come to pass with regard to this election, and 
the ability to vote a certain number of names in a given time 

Answer. —“It was nothing about the election.” 

Question. —“ Do you say it had no relation to this question V 9 

Answer .—« We didn’t talk about the election. We only spoke of the 
names.” 


73 


Question .—“Don’t you know that it was with regard to this very 
question that you put down these names ?” 

Answer. —“It was not. I don’t remember it to be so. I did not under’ - 
stand anything like that to be the object. I can’t tell myself what it was 
for.” 

Question. —“ Did you ever do it before V 9 

Answer. —“ Often before, when I was a schoolboy. I don’t know that 
I have ever done it since I was a voter.” 

Question .—“ Why did you do it then 1 ?” 

Answer. —“ We were just talking about the matter of how many names 
could be taken in a minute. Everybody knows it had not reference to an 
election, because there could be no such numbers taken at an election in 
a minute. We put down eleven names in a minute that night. The names 
were on a ball ticket in the bar-room, and I took them as they came.” 

Question .—“ He copied the names from a ball ticket, did he V 9 

Answer. —“Yes, sir. Wurteim was not there. I know the names, 
but I can’t remember them now. John Woods was one—not the John 
Woods of Second Ward, Moyamensing. It is one that lives in the city. 
He was a manager on the ticket.” 

Question .—“Had you conversation at the time'?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t remember that we had. We must have had some 
conversation, but I don’t remember anything—nothing but about writing 
these names.” 

Quesiion. —“ Was no wonder expressed that eleven could be taken in 
a minute ?” 

Answer —“ No, sir. It had no reference at all to the election.” 

Question Was there nothing said about this question here pending 
in Court.'?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge. There might have been, but I don’t 
remember what the conversation was. I never thought of hearing of it 
again.” 

Question .—“ Had you been requested to make the experiment?” 

Answer. —“ No request about it. I did not communicate to anybody 
the result of it, and I never heard of it again till I heard of it here in 
Court.” 

Question. —“ Can you give us the precise time of the opening of the 
polls V 9 

Answer. —“ No, sir. It was between 8 and 10 o’clock.” 

Question. —“ By what clock did you go?” 

Answer. —“I can’t tell whether it was by a clock or a watch. The 
officers of the election fixed the hour.” 

Question .—“ How did you know it was between eight and ten?” 

Answer.— u That you should ask the officers, for I don’t know. I 
know it was between eight and ten, for I was in there. There was a 
clock in the room. That was not the clock by which we opened and 

10 


74 


closed, that I know of. No clock was altered during the day. I did not 
look at the clock during the day. Did not look at it when we closed. 
Can’t tell whether she was going or stopped.” 

Question. —“ You have stated that 1223 votes was the announcement V 9 

Answen —“ Yes, sir, announced by the Clerks.” 

Question. — u Who were the judges of that election'?” 

Answer. —“ There was but one judge, Mr. Donnelly. The inspectors 
were John Meorarv and Wm. McMullen. Wm. McMullen became an 

O v 

inspector by the resignation of James Murphy.” 

Question. —“ When was the resignation and substitution V 9 

Answer.— “ I can’t remember the times. I can’t tell how long before 
the election. I heard it and saw him there. I knew Murphy was 
elected, and I knew there was a change from seeing McMullen there. 
James Hayburn and Joseph Vertine were the Clerks. Each inspector 
has the right of appointing one. I didn’t see who appointed them.” 

Questions —“ When did you first go into the room on the day of the 
election.” 

Answer. —“ It may have been at daylight in the morning. I went in 
and came out again. It was between 7 and 9 o’clock when I first went in 
when the judge and inspectors were there. I went out again a few minutes 
afterwards. I went after the Alderman of the ward to his house, and I told 
him to hurry, that the officers of the election were waiting for him, and 
they wanted him to hurry down. I am not certain whether he came 
with me or after me. He came to the polls and they were sworn in.” 

Question .—“ Alter that how long did you remain there V 9 

Answer. —“ I remained from the polls opening till they closed, with 
the exception of a few minutes out and in. I can’t tell how often I was 
out of the room. I might have been out ten times, but not more than 
five minutes at a time. I continued till the polls closed.” 

Question.—“ By what clock did you close them'?” 

Answer. —“ Mr. Fagan said, c Megary, shut the polls at ten o’clock, and 
don’t take in a vote after the polls are closed.’ Apart from that I can’t 
tell at what time they closed. With certain intermissions, I was there 
from first to last. 

Question. —“ How do you remember there were 1223 votes'?” 

Answer .—“ It was from the announcement by the clerks. I did not 
see the returns of the officers, but I have seen them in the papers. I fix 
the number from what the clerks announced. I think it was James Hay- 
burn announced it. I distinctly recollect how many it was. I heard the 
number announced. I am not positive as to who announced it. I am not 
positive as to the time when it was announced, but it was some hours after 
the polls were closed, any how. I can’t tell what time they took to get 
the tally list fixed. It was the same nighty—or you may say mornin^ after 
the election,—I can’t say how late.” 

Question .—“ Hadn’t you left the polls before this announcement was 
made'?” 

Answer. —“ I did go out sometimes—not more than five minutes at a 


75 


time. I left after the polls closed, and before the announcement was 
made. I hadn’t been gone more than five minutes. I went to my own 
bar room and back again. I don’t remember that I left it again. I am 
not positive as to when the 1223 votes was announced. It was in the 
morning. It was not after daylight.” 

Question .—“ Can you tell who gave the first vote at that poll ?” 

Answer .—“ I cannot. I don’t remember. I don’t remember Mr. Prim¬ 
rose. I don’t know him. It is impossible for me to know any of those 
names that came to the polls. I held the assessment list, and it kept me 
busy enough to hunt the names, without taking notice of what came in. 
I do not to my knowledge know Primrose. I did not to my knowledge hear 
his name that day. I don’t know Vertine.” 

Question .—“Did you know any man that voted after 1000'?” 

Answer. —“ I knew William Bradford. I did not see the person’s face. 
William Bradford came to the window and voted. I did not see his face. 
It was impossible for the officers to see his face.” 

Question. —“ Did you see any man that you knew, that voted after 
1000 V 9 

Answer. —“I could not tell twelve men out of the 1223. I could not 
tell twenty-five anyhow. I know their names, but not their faces.” 

Question. —“ Can you give one person that you did know, and that you 
saw vote after 1000 ?” 

Answer. —“ I could not give one out of the 1223, because I knew their 
names but not their faces at the window. I had too much to attend to, in 
attending to the assessment list.” 

Question. —“ Can you give the name of a single man in that Ward that 
did vote from your seeing him vote ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know that I could give you the name of a man. I 
know them by hearing their names.” 

Question. —“ You were so much occupied with your duties that you 
didn’t see what was going on ?” 

Answer. —“ I didn’t say so. You were talking about men voting through 
the window. I was capable of seeing, but I was paying attention to my 
book. I paid no attention as to what was going on inside while the polls 

were opened.” 

Question. —“ You said that a number of the leaves were skipped, leaving 
them unnumbered, and then went on with subsequent leaves in numbering 
_how did they go back, and take up the numbers and make them corres¬ 
pond with those that followed 1 ” 

Answer ._“ I don’t know how they did that. I did not look at them.” 

Question. —“ Do you remember the fact of ten or a dozen persons 
voting consecutively, in order, whose names all began with Me ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t remember anything about it.” 

Question. —“ Do you remember the fact that many portions show that 
persons whose names begin with the same letter voted very nearly toge¬ 
ther 1 ” 

Answer .—“I do not.” 


76 


Question .—“ You have stated that you went for the magistrate—did 
he come?” 

Answer .—“On the morning of the election—yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ You had your Assessor’s list, had you'?” 

Answer .—“I had.” 

Question. —“ Describe the size of the book you had there.” 

Answer .—“ It was the size of this book.” [Mr. Hirst’s note book.] 

Question. —“ You kept that book yourself?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ The judge didn’t have that ?” 

Answer. —“ The judge hadn’t any right to it. The judge hadn’t it. 
Sometimes the clerk would take it while I went out. The clerk or in¬ 
spector. I marked a tick opposite the names as they voted. Sometimes 
they came so fast that I could not find them. Those I did find I ticked 
with awora dot, one or the other. I can’t tell how many I ticked. I 
could not tell any one man that I did tick. I am sure I did not tick all.” 

Question. —“ Then your alphabetical list would not correspond with the 
list of voters kept by the clerk ?” 

Answer. —“ I know there are a great many more names on the list. 
A great many names were vouched for that were not on the assessor’s 
list.” 

Question .—“ Did you write any names in your list of taxables tha* 
day ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t remember if I did.” 

Question —“ Did you know that the law required you, when a voter 
was not on the assessment list, to write his name and place of residence 
on the list?” 

Answer. —“ The law don’t require me to do it. One of the officers of 
the election is to do it. I kept the book. The inspector didn’t write in 
my book to my knowledge.” 

Question .—“ Am I to understand you that your alphabetical list of 
taxables did not show written on it any name that was not on the original 
or extra assessment list ?” 

Answer .—“ It did not, to my knowledge. None were written in my 
presence, to my knowledge.” 

Question .—“ Did you see any written ?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge.” 

Question .—“ A great many voted that were not on the assessor’s list?” 

Answer. —“ A great number.” 

Question .—“ And you were not able to mark even those that were on 
the list ?” 

Answer .—“ Not at all times.” 

Question.— How many were there on the list that voted, that you 
didn’t put a tick opposite their names ?” 


77 


Answer'.— u I can’t say that. I was in the room at ten o’clock when 
the polls closed, to the best of my knowledge. I had my book my¬ 
self. I threw it on the table. I was not there when the boxes were 
sealed.” 

Question. — i( When was the last time that you saw that alphabetical 
list 1” 

Answer .— “ When the polls closed, to the best of my knowledge.” 

Question - <( In whose custody did you leave it 

Answer. — T u I just left it on the table.” 

Question .— <c Did you see two lists of voters 

Answer. —“I did. Hayburn kept one and Megary another. Wurteim 
got sick, and the inspector took his place. I can’t tell at what time he 
got sick. He had the diarrhoea. He gave me the information. That is 
all I know about it.” 

Question .—■“ When did you last see the second list of voters kept by 
Hayburn 

Answer. —“ At the time the polls closed, to the best of my knowledge. 
I was not there when the boxes were sealed.” 

Question. —“ When were you last there before the boxes went away 

Answer. —“ I suppose it may have been two hours.” 

Question. — <c Did any of the officers of the election go to bed on Tuesday 
night 1” 

Answer .— “ No sir. None of them went to bed at any time, to the best 
of my knowledge. I know they did not.” 

Question. —“ Did all the officers of the election, except yourself, remain 
in the room all the time, from ten o’clock, Tuesday night, till three 
o’clock on Wednesday morning?” 

Answer. —“ They did ; except that when one went down the remainder 
were there. The Judge remained there all that time.” 

Question. —“ He passed no part of the night in your bar room ?” 

Answer. —“ He might have been in the bar room. I can’t say. He 
was not more than five minutes down at any one time. I don’t know that 
he was there at all, but he might have been. The officers were busy all 
the time in counting the votes, except the time they were fixing the elec¬ 
tion papers.” 

Question. —“ They were busy from ten o’clock, on Tuesday night, till 
three o’clock on Thursday morning, were they ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes sir, busy finishing the election.” 

Question. —“ Did they hear in the course of the day, anything about 
how the election was getting finished anywhere else ?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge.” 

Question. —“ Did’nt you know all day, Wednesday, about the voting 
anywhere else V 9 

Answer. —“ I heard, but I can’t tell at what time. It might have been 


78 


about twelve o’clock, on the night of the election, I heard. I did not 
hear from Spring Garden at all. I am certain of that. There was nobody 
inside of the room but Mr. Enue, except the officers of the election, that 
I know of. I don’t remember of anybody else being in there when I was, 
but Joseph Enue.” 

Question. — u Was there or was there not any body else but Mr. Enue 
in that room before the polls closed ?” 

Answer. —“ There might have been, but 1 don’t remember.” 

Question. —“ You said that the number, 1223, was announced before 
daylight on the morning of Wednesday ; was it announced from the window 
to anybody ?” 

Answer. — u No sir, not to my knowledge. It was communicated to 
the officers. I did not look at the list myself. When they came so fast 
in voting that I could not find their names, sometimes I asked them to stop 
till I could find them, and sometimes I did not.” 

Question. — <e Why did’nt you ?” 

Answer. —“ Because the votes were coming very fast, and I had no right 
to tell them to stop.” 

Question. — tc Where does Wm. Bradford live?” 

Answer .—“ He did live in Bedford street, between Eighth and Seventh, 
on the south side of the way, about half way between. I rather think he 
was a boarder there. I can’t say in whose house I saw him. A person 
by that name voted. I did not see him vote. I am not positive that I 
put a tick opposite to his name.” 

Question .—“ Was he on the assessment list?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge. I don’t remember that I wrote his 
name down when he came and voted.” 

Question. —“ You have spoken of a gentleman named John Woods, who 
was a manager of a ball, and you said it was not the John Woods that 
voted ?” 

Witness .—“I didn’t say that.” 

Question. —“ You said not the John Woods on the assessment list?” 

Answer. —“I said that I didn’t know whether that John Woods voted 
or not. I can’t tell where Yertine lives. I never knew him. I might 
have known him if I had seen him, but I did not.” 

Question. —“ You gave to Mr. Hirst, on Thursday, the name of John 
Dougherty, butcher ?” 

Answer .—“ I mentioned him out of the assessor’s list. I did not mean 
to say he voted.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ His number was given as 919. Have you looked 
since the Court adjourned over that list of names?” 

Answer .— “ I have looked over no names since.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I did not hand him the list of names.” 

Witness. —“I have not looked at that list of names since the court ad¬ 
journed, nor at any list of voters.” 


79 


Mr. Campbell .—“ You mentioned Sami. McGowan, No. 924, you knew 
him ?’’ 

Jlnswer. —“I didn’t say so. He was on the assessment list. I men¬ 
tioned James Potter as on the asssessment list. I mentioned Edward 
McCue, weaver, Milton street, above Tenth. [No. 980.] 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You mentioned John Dunn?” 

Answer. —“I don’t know him ; he is on the assessor’s list.” 

Mr. Campbell —“ John Ralston ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know him. I believe I mentioned him as being on 
the assessment list.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Robert Jones, laborer, Essex street, below Catharine'? ” 

Witness .—“ I don’t know him by the name.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Didn’t you say he was on the assessment list?” 

Answer .—“ To the best of my knowledge. If I could see the assess¬ 
ment list I could tell.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you accompany the boxes to Aid. Fletcher’s?” 

Answer. —“ I did. The officers of the election carried them ; I did not 
carry them; I walked along.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Do you know Mr. Wurteim’s handwriting?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir. I will not be positive as to any man’s hand¬ 
writing.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“All the requirements of law, so far as you knew, 
were complied with in reference to voters ?” 

Witness. —“ I don’t understand you ?” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ When a man came who was not on either of the as¬ 
sessment lists, he was required to make due proof?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. This far, if a man came who was not known to 
have a residence in the ward, he either had a voucher, or the officers of 
the election knew him.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I understand you to say that every man who came 
up to vote, who was not on the original or extra assessment list, was either 
known to the officers or produced a voucher ?” 

Answer .—“It was so, to the best of my knowledge.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“You know of no instance to the contrary?” 

Witness. —“No, sir, not that I recollect.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“If that is so, the last 211, who are not on the assess¬ 
ment list, were either known to the officers, or produced vouchers?” 

Objected to by Mr. Hirst, but the witness answered that they did. 

Re-examined .—“The election was held within hearing of the Moya- 
mensing Hall clock.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Tell the Court how you came to write these eleven 
names, what you were talking about, and all about it.” 


80 


Witness. —“ I could hardly commence to tell how it commenced. It 
was in the bar-room. It came up how many names could be taken down 
in five minutes. It was a matter of dispute in the bar-room. I timed the 
watch while Mr. Fagan took the names. I never thought of it again. 5 ’ 

Mr. Hirst. —“ You have stated that the voters came in so fast that you 
hadn’t time to make the examination; when was that ?” 

Witness. — tc It was at night, between eight and ten o’clock. I was 
asleep when the ballot boxes were sealed up. I suppose I went to sleep 
between eleven and one o’clock. I was aroused when they were going 
with the boxes over. All the officers of the election went with the boxes, 
and I saw them safely deposited with Alderman Fletcher.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ What was said among the officers in reference to the 
number of votes polled ?” 

Witness. —“ They thought there would be a great many more polled 
than there were. There was a difficulty in getting the first and the last 
names of voters. Sometimes they had to call them back to get their 
names. They commenced counting the tickets on the Amendment, and I 
think they finished that in the kitchen. The second was the District Com¬ 
missioners—that was counted up stairs. It was daylight in the morning 
when they went up stairs. I can’t tell what hour it was. I am not cer¬ 
tain if they counted the Amendment in the kitchen or not, but I think they 
did though.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ What led to the protracted counting off?” 

Answer. —“ Mr. Donnelly could not get along very fast.” 

James Murphey, sworn. —“I resided in Second Ward, Moyamensing. 
I was elected inspector for the last election. I resigned, and the judge, 
Mr. Donnelly, appointed Mr. McMullen.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ State how you came to resign that office.” 

Witness. —“ I was appointed to a corporate office, and thus disqualified. 
I was elected first in July, and the second time in November. I was on 
the election ground most part of the day. There was the greatest crowd 
there after dark. There was fast and constant voting. I was there till 
25 minutes past nine o’clock, and then I left to answer roll call. I had 
to answer at half past nine o’clock. I then returned to see how they 
were, before going to my beat. They were polling pretty quick when I 
left. There was a pretty long string. I came back in about ten minutes 
after I left. I was back at about twenty minutes before ten. They were 
still voting away. There was a string of voters, and a crowd round 
there, so that I could not push in, to see the voters.” 

Cross examined. —“ I left at 25 minutes past nine o’clock. I believe 
at nine o’clock, or thereabouts, Moses Henry voted. I recollect tha 
name well. It was between eight and nine o’clock, I think.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Here is Morris Henry, No. 972.” 

Mr Campbell. —“ If the counsel will look at 783, he will find the same 
name.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I read from the original tally list, ‘ Morris Haines, 783,’ 
and the only name of Henry that voted, is ‘ Morris Henry, 972.’” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Where does this gentleman live V 9 


81 


Witness. —“In Milton, between Tenth and Eleventh. He is a weaver. 
I can’t say if he is in the court room.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Give the name of any one that you saw vote between 
twenty minutes before ten, and ten o’clock ?” 

Witness ..—“ I cannot; for the crowd was so great that I could not 
push up to see the voters. I could not name one man. I cannot give 
the name of any other man who voted about nine o’clock. Henry Dugan 
voted between twelve and two o’clock. I know him and saw him vote. 
I know two of that name—himself and his uncle. I don’t know of any 
other man of that name. One voted, but I am not aware that the other 
did.” 

Question. —“ Did you search for some of the persons whose names were 
on this list, among the last 250 or 300 ?” 

Answer. —“I did; I found several.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ This is certainly not cross-examination.”—Argued by 
Mr. Hirst and Mr. Campbell. 

Judge King.- —“He may inquire whether he was engaged in hunting 
up any of the persons whose names are at the termination of that list, but 
he cannot ask what he ascertained from them, for it would not be evidence 
on either side.” 

<4 

Witness. —“ I went to look for some of the persons whose names ate m 
the last 300 on the list of voters, on Saturday last. I went to several parts 
of the ward.” 

Question. —“ Give me the places ?” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I object to wasting time in this way.” 

Judge King. —“ If he can show where these parties can be found, they 
can settle the question.” 

Witness. —“The parties we did find, have been subpoenaed and will be 
here— a il that we found that were voters, have been subpoenaed here. We 
went to several houses, and the individuals had removed to New York, and 
other places.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“All that you saw and conversed with were sub¬ 
poenaed.” 

Witness. —“ All that we saw that had voted at the election. Those We 
didn’t see we could not subpoena. I did nothing but stand by While they 
were subpoenaed.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Was every person whom you did stand by and con¬ 
verse with on this subject, subpoenaed 1” 

Witness .—“Yes; all that voted at the election. We didn’t see any 
that did not vote. All that we saw that had voted or said they had voted, 
we subpoenaed. We didn’t find any who said they hadn’t voted whose 
names were on the list. Some had removed here and there.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“You went to a certain number of individuals, and 
every one you saw whose name was on your list there, you subpcenaed?” 

Witness »—“ Every one who said they had voted.’* 

11 


82 


Mr. Campbell.—“ Then there were some others whom you did see that 
you did not subpoena V 9 

Witness. —“ No, sir. All we saw and who said they had voted, and 
whose names were on the list, I subpoenaed.” 

Judge King.— ££ Did you subpoena every person whom you found, whose 
name was on the list of voters'?” 

Witness. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Question .— ££ Did you subpoena every person on that list that you 
found V 9 

Answer .— ££ Yes, sir—I tell you, that he said he had voted some we 
could not find—we found none that were on that list, to say they didn’t 
vote.” 

Mr. Campbell. —‘‘ Every person on your subpoena that you were able 
to find, you summoned, whether he said he voted or not V 9 

Answer. — {c No, sir—not whether he said he voted or not. We found 
none that said they did vote, but we subpoenaed them.” 

Mr. Campbell. — ££ Did you see a man named Wm. Craig.” 

Answer .— ££ I don’t recollect.” 

Mr. Campbell .— ££ Did you see a man named John Duffy'?” 

Answer .— ££ I don’t recollect.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“John Wood, in Hall, between Tenth and Eleventh 

streets'?” 

Answer. — ££ I don’t recollect seeing him.” 

Mr. Campbell. — £ * James Neillis'?” 

Answer. — ££ No. I was not out in his part of the Ward.” 

Question .— ££ Wm. Keyser.” 

Answer. — ££ No, sir. Nor Patrick Bryan, nor Edward Hunter. I saw 
Andrew McQuillan ; the other man subpoenaed him. I don’t recollect 
seeing John Robbins, nor James Lansdoune, nor John Stone, nor William 
Morgan, nor Moses Lipman, nor Charles Moss, nor Wm. Green, nor Robt. 
Jones, nor John Ralston, nor John Dunn, nor Edward McClue, nor James 
Potter.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst. 

Mr. Hirst .—“You went on Saturday last with a constable from the 
city.” 

Witness. — ££ I don’t know his name, but he asked me to show him the 
places, I living in the District. I never saw him before. He asked me to 
go with him. The only reason he gave was that I knew the District. I 
know a little of the District. I don’t know a man named Lea Bunker. I 
have heard speak of him. I might have seen him. I understand that he 
has been in* the Hall as a prisoner, and I might have seen him. The Dis¬ 
trict runs from Seventh to Eleventh streets, and from South to Carpenter. 
There are a great many courts, lanes and alleys in it. When I went with 
this person I went into Carpenter, Milton and part of Shippen streets.” 

Mr. Hirst .— £ ‘ Is not the Ward full of courts and small alleys V 9 



83 


Answer .—“ Shippen street in particular is. I can’t estimate the number 
of houses in one of these squares. Several persons had moved away 5 we 
enquired and found that the most part were weavers that had moved away. 
Journeymen weavers are but a small time in one house. Last fall trade 
was slack up town, and they came down town, and then they moved back 
again when trade got a little brisk.” 

Cross-examined .—“ Journeymen weavers often move. JamesMcAnally 
was one who moved. Whether he went to the alms house or not, I can’t 
say. I don’t recollect any other one ; there were several. I think there 
was three or four subpoenaed the other day when I was along.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Did you faithfully endeavor to inform the officer of 
the residence of these persons 

Answer.— i( Yes, sir. I found three or four.” 

Re-examined .— u Low characters are what they call congressmen; some¬ 
times lying in the streets, boarding in no place. There are a great many 
laborers and others, mechanics and oystermen in the Ward.” 

John McGarry, sworn .—“ I was an Inspector of Second Ward, Moya- 
mensing at the last election. I was elected by the people. I have been 
in the Ward about fifteen years, I guess. I an now a Lieutenant of Police 
under Marshal Keyser. I have been appointed since the election. I was 
elected by the Board of Commissioners. The poll at Second Ward, Moya- 
mensing, at the last election, opened between 8 and 9 o’clock, and closed 
at ten precisely. I closed it at the time the Township Hall bell was 
striking ten. I was present during the election till it closed, and none 
were in the room but the officers till it closed, except Mr. McFall, the 
Assessor. From the time the polls closed till the boxes were sealed up, 
nobody was in the room but the officers, except Mr. Enue. Mr. McMullin 
took the tickets during the day. I took them for five or ten minutes 
during his absence. As the tickets were polled, they were deposited in 
their proper boxes, I think, and they were kept there carefully till they 
were counted off.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ During what hours of the day or night was the greatest 
number of votes polled in proportion to the time 1 ” 

Answer .—“ I think from six to ten. From eight to ten I think there 
was an increase of the numbers. From eight to ten there was a constant 
pour of votes. At the time the polls closed there was a person handing 
a ticket in at the window, and I closed on him, and would not take it. 
When the polls closed 1223, I believe, was the number polled. That is 
the number.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ How many votes were polled at ten o’clock at night at 
the election in October, in Second Ward, Moyamensing'?” 

Answer .—“ 1223, 1 believe. I don’t recollect exactly; I was not in¬ 
terested so much as to still keep it in my mind, but whatever was polled 
we made a return of.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ If you have any doubt about the number, state it.” 

Witness .—“ I have no doubt about it. I recollect a person named 
Bunker voting—Lea Bunker. I rather think he voted at night. I don’t 
recollect the hour. The name was odd was the reason I noticed it. I 
am certain that a person of that name voted. [No. 1123.] When a man 


84 


named Vertine voted, Mr. Wurteim, one of the clerks, remarked at 
the time that he was not his brother or any relation of his, or something 
of the kind. \No. 1090.] I don’t recollect at what hour he voted ; it was 
at night. After the polls were closed we counted off down stairs the 
ticket for and against the amendment; then each officer took a box and 
carried it* am the 2d floor at Mr. McFall’s, and there we finished the busi¬ 
ness and the balance of the tickets were counted. We went upstairs to 
count the balance, just before daybreak. I don’t recollect of anything 
being done down stairs only preparing to count off that ticket.” 

Mr. Hirst.—** What kept you so long counting off?” 

Answer .—“ It was our want of knowledge, I judge. There was nobody 
there that knew anything about the business. I had never been in one 
and knew nothing about it, and judging from appearances all inside knew 
just as little. Mr. Donnelly was very particular about everything.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ Who kept the two lists of voters ?” 

Answer .—“ Mr. Wurteim, for about two hours in the morning, was 
my clerk. I took his place after that, and Mr. Hayburn was McMullen’s 
clerk. Wurteim could not keep his list for sometime, he was too un¬ 
well to attend to it. During the night, when the voting was so constant, 
there was a difficulty in getting the first and last names of voters. Several 
times the clerks had to stop the inspector at the windows, and they said 
they were coming in too fast. In the evening, when the voting was so 
fast, some were numbered, and some were not till the closing of the polls, 
and then they were numbered. There was a regular disarrangement of the 
list of voters about two hours after the polls were opened, by Mr. Wur¬ 
teim. I went to him and noticed it. The votes, up to the two hours, 
had been carried out correctly, and then there were a number of blank 
leaves omitted. These were filled up at different times by voters coming 
in afterwards. I could not say how many names had been omitted to be 
numbered before the polls closed. I don’t know. The two lists of voters 
were compared by the clerks after the polls closed, and numbered.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ Was any name placed on either of these lists of voters 
after the election closed that hadn’t voted during the election ?” 

Witness. —“No, sir; I am positive as to that.” 

The original list of votes handed to the witness. 

Witness .—“I recognise some of my hand-writing there, from 915 to 
967. Jacob Knox is in my hand-writing. We asked Mr. Enue to come up 
on Wednesday afternoon or evening, to show us the proper boxes to put 
the papers in. He did so and then left. When he came in the room we 
told him what we wanted, and he gave us the necessary information. The 
papers were deposited in the boxes and he left. He didn’t touch any of 
the tickets. Nobody was in the room but him during the counting off. 
The ballots in the boxes were correctly counted off and returned, to the 
best of my knowledge and belief. I assisted in it. We put all the papers 
in the boxes. I can’t recollect what they were. All the necessary pa¬ 
pers, as Mr. Enue told us, were put in the box. I was present when they 
were placed in the box and sealed up. They were delivered to Alderman 
Fletcher. All the officers went round and carried them to him. I can’t 

recollect all the papers that were put in. McMullen may tell you_he 

put them in. I looked at him and saw there was none, to the best of my 


85 


knowledge, kept back. I can’t specify any of the papers. I think two 
lists of voters were put in the boxes. They were both made out. I should 
suppose they were in. I am not certain -of one more than the other. I 
noticed at the time McMullen was putting them in, and saw that nothing 
was kept back. I was anxious myself from being in there, and the talk 
that had been going round, to be particular. A bundle was done up for 
Mr. Enue and delivered to him. It was not sealed—it was tied and carried 
to him. I saw that bundle made up, and the rest of the papers, except 
those put in that bundle, were placed in the boxes. Neither of the lists 
of voters was placed in the bundle made up for Mr. Enue. I recollect 
Mr. McFall’s having a list of taxables during the day. That was not put 
in the bundle made up for Mr. Enue. I don’t know what Mr. McFall did 
with that.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Could you recollect the boxes in which these were 
placed?” 

Answer. —“ I cannot—I believe they were not particular what box they 
put them in. Mr. Enue, I believe, said it didn’t make any difherence, but 
to put them in which box they could get them in—the one that has the 
most room.” 1 

[The returns produced.] 

Mr. Hirst. —“Are those the correct returns of the vote polled in the 
Second Ward, Moyamensing ?” 

Answer .— u These are the correct returns.” 

Mr. Hirst reads returns. —“For the amendment, 325 ; against it, 124. 
Wm. S. Morrison, 1087; Joshua Dungan, 131; J. Porter Brawley, 1088; 
Joseph Henderson, 129; Kimber Cleaver, 1 ; Ephraim Banks, 1088; H. 
W. Snyder, 129; E. S. Neil, 1. For Congress, T. B. Florence, 1097; 
Peleg B. Savery, 3 ; Lewis C. Levin, 107 ; John C. Montgomery, 2 ; T. 
H. Forsyth, 1088 ; W. D. Baker, 129. For the Assembly on the one side, 
1086, 1084, 1076, 1085, 1086, 1084, 1084, 1087, 1086, 1086. On the 
other side, 130, 130, 129 ; Jos. S. Fletcher has the lowest vote, 128. 
The Court will observe, that the Whig vote is 130. For District At¬ 
torney, Horn R. Kneass, 1097; W. B. Reed, 94; W. R. Dickerson, 31 ; 
Peter A. Browne, 1. Prothonotary Court of Common Pleas, George 
Carpenter, 1108; James Yinyard, 115. County Commissioner, Jos L. 
Smith, 1105 and Adam Shetzline, 118. For Auditor, Wm. Field, 1108 
and Parker, 115. County Surveyor, 1100 and 120.” 

[The boxes for Second Ward, Moyamensing, are produced.] 

Witness. —“ The greatest number of papers was put in the largest box 
I believe. We had a large box like this. I think ‘State officers,’ on that 
box, is in Mr. McMullen’s handwriting. The largest amount of papers 
were placed in the large box, and I saw them sealed up and we went 
with them to Alderman Fletchers.” 

Cross-examined. — u The first 84 names on the list of voters is in the 
handwriting of Mr. Wurteim I believe. From 84 to 111, I believe is 
my handwriting. From 111 to 202, is Wurteim’s. There was a time 
when M‘Fall kept the list of voters. That is the time when I had occa¬ 
sion to leave the room, and Wurteim was unwell, and not able to do it. 
From 202 to 290, is either in McFall’s or McMullen’s handwriting. From 
290 to 302, has been kept by two different persons. There is mine for 


86 


one, and whose the other is I don’t know. It is the same as the other. 
The handwriting you had reference to is carried out to 292. From 293 
to 302 is mine. From 302 to 342 is either McFall’s or McMullen’s. I 
don’t know which. From 344 to 447 is mine. 1 think it is mine. Mine 
and Hayburn’s are very much alike. I write different now from what I 
used to. Time has made a change in my hand. I think that is my writ¬ 
ing. From 447 to 470 is either McMullen’s or McFall’s. From 470 to 
750 is mine. From 750 to 761 is either McMullen’s or McFall’s. From 
762 to 1075 is mine. 

Mr. Campbell. — u Whose writing is it from 1075 to 12231” 

Answer. — a Some is mine and some is somebody else’s. Mine ends 
here with George Cross, 1175. From 1175 to the end is either McMul¬ 
len’s or McFall’s. I don’t recollect who kept the list when the polls 
closed. It was McMullen or McFall, for I was at the window when they 
closed.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Who kept the other window list 1” 

Answer. —“ Part of the day I kept McFall’s list myself.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ McFall’s list and this were all that were kept ?” 

Answer. — cc We kept all that was necessary. Hayburn kept one list 
from the beginning to the end ; all through. There is none of his hand¬ 
writing that I recognise on this list. I went to the window some time 
between 9 and 10 o’clock. I won’t be positive as to the time. I had 
been writing before that.” 

Mr. Campbell. — “ You went from your place to the window list 1 ?” 

Witness. —“ No, sir. I had been sitting in McFall’s seat. Sometimes 
I kept his book, and sometimes he was at my list, just according to circum¬ 
stances. We were not particular as to where we sat down, so it was kept 
correctly. I don’t recollect whether or not I went from my seat where 
I was writing to the window. I rather think I was sitting in McFall’s 
place, and McMullen said he had occasion to go into the yard, and I took 
his place. He commenced when the polls opened, and received the tickets 
from the voters. I don’t recollect through the day, what time I began. I 
was at the window receiving votes, twice or oftener during the day. I 
don’t recollect whether I was there three or four times, but I recollect 
being there twice anyhow.” 

Mr. Campbell. — ce Once between nine and ten o’clock, when was the 
other time ?” 

Answer. — u I don’t recollect what time.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ What man voted when you were at the window early 
in the day ?” 

Answer. — u I don’t recollect that. I recollect a man came to the win¬ 
dow to vote, and he was challenged, and I would not accept his vote. He 
said his name was Daniel Megary; he did’nt vote. I don’t recollect any 
one who voted while I was at the window early in the day. I don’t re¬ 
collect whether it was before or after lunch, that I was at the window.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Were you at the window the first time before or after 
night ?” 

Witness .—“ It was through the day some time. I don’t recollect how 


87 


long it was before I was there the second time. I don’t recollet how many 
votes I received when I was at the window the first time. I distributed 

the votes I received into the boxes.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Are you sure of that ?” 

Answer. —“ If I got any I did. I don’t recollect whether I got any or 
not. At the time I was at the window I did’nt stop any time. McMullen 
went out, and came in again.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ He was at the window all day except these few min¬ 
utes, and just before the polls closed?” 

Witness. —“ I was at the window twice or oftener. I don’t recollect 
at what times I was there. I would not hesitate a moment about telling 
if I recollected, but I don’t recollect. I have been trying to think, and 
cannot do it. I don’t recollect any one whose vote I received. The last 
time I was at the window a person named Daniel Megary wanted to vote. 

I don’t know the name of the man who wanted to vote when I closed the 
polls, at ten o’clock. The clock was striking, we were closing the polls, 
and his vote could not be admitted. I did’nt ask his name, and don’t know 
who it was. I don’t recollect any man who voted between nine and ten 
o’clock. I don’t recollect at what time I voted.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ When you had McFall’s book what did you do 
with it ?” 

Answer. —“ As the voters came in, and their votes were received, I 
marked it with a pencil, I believe.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ When his name was not on the book, what did you 
do then ?” 

Answer. —“ I noticed nothing but the book ; that was left entirely to 
the Inspector and Judge. I thought McMullen and the Judge were suffi¬ 
cient.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Did you write a man’s name in McFall’s book?” 

Answer. —“ I think not.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Did you mark all the men whose votes were re¬ 
ceived ?” 

Answer. —“ All, while I had his book, I believe I marked. I don’t 
recollect who had that book between nine and ten o’clock. I suppose 
when I hadn’t it McFall had it generally, or there was a time that Wur- 
teim had it. When I took his place he was unable to write, and found 
the other much easier than writing.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Did you see, in looking over McFall’s book, any 
writing in it ?” 

Answer .—“No, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ And the names were printed in his book ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir. I don’t recollect anything about McFall’s book. 
I took it while the voters came and marked it.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Was that book on which you marked a list of voters 
in writing or in print ?” 

Answer. —“I don’t recollect. I know there was printing in it. I am 
sure of that.” 


88 


Mr. Hirst asks the object of the examination in reference to this book, 
and Mr. Campbell replies that one of the many objects is to test the cre¬ 
dibility of the witness. 

Witness .—“ The names in Mr. McFall’s book were printed. I don’t 
recollect the size of the book. I think it was about the size of the one 
Mr. Hirst has, taking notes in. While I had it, I marked on it the voters 
as they came up.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ You suffered no man to vote without finding his 
name there ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t recollect, but I rather think I didn’t. I think while 
I had the book, I found the names of all the persons in it.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ While you had the book no one voted except he was 
assessed ?” 

Answer .—“ I think not. I recollect of having the book but once. I 
can’t tell how long I had it.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Had you it a half day, an hour, or five minutes ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t recollect how long I had it. I don’t know that I 
had it five minutes, and I feel confident that I hadn’t it five hours—that 
is all I can say. I don’t recollect who had the book that day besides Mr. 
McFall and myself. I don’t recollect of anybody else.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Didn’t you say a few minutes ago that Mr. Wurteim 
had it ?” 

Answer. —“ I forgot. Mr. Wurteim did have it. I did not see Mr. 
McMullen have it, nor Mr. Hayburn. I don’t recollect anybody else 
having Hayburn’s list.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ When you shut the windows at ten o’clock, what 
was the first thing you did ?” 

Answer .—“To count off the ticket, for and against the Amendment. 
We commenced it directly after it closed.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ How long did it take you to do it ?” 

Answer. —“ It was very near daylight before we got through it. I don’t 
recollect who poured the tickets out of the boxes. All assisted in making 
them up into bundles of tens, and it was near daylight before we got done 
that.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Was that the first thing after the polls closed?” 

Answer .—“ That was the first thing. We did nothing else down stairs 
after the closing of the polls—concerning the election.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Have you not made a mistake ?” 

Answer. —“ None.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You did nothing with the list of voters ?” 

Answer. —“We prepared the necessary papers of course. The first 
thing we did after the polls closed was to count off the tickets about the 
Amendment, the second was to get the books and carry them up stairs, and 
then we didn’t do anything but finish counting the whole of the tickets. 

I don’t recollect who we began with up stairs. I don’t recollect at what 
ticket we began with up stairs, nor which was the last. I recollect each 


89 


taking whatever tickets they were^ inclined to take, and did them up in 
bundles of ten and setting them aside. I don’t recollect what ticket I 
counted off. The different tickets were all thrown together except the 
amendment. What I mean is that the different candidates for the same 
office were thrown together in a heap and each one counted from that. 
What was in each box was turned out, and we all hands counted from 
each of the boxes as they were thrown out, and they were made up in 
bundles of ten and set aside. They all read out the tickets. I counted 
first, then handed them to McMullen and he handed them to the judge, 
naming the candidates. The judge examined them, or had a right to do 
so. We twisted them in tens. I examined them before that and handed 
them to McMullen, and he examined them and handed them to the judge, 
and the judge twisted them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ After you got through this what did you do?” 

Answer. —“ Nothing only what was necessary.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ What did you do ?” 

Answer. —•“ I have already said that after we got through counting the 
tickets and everything of this kind, we sent for Mr. Enue. W.e had 
everything ready when Mr. Enue came. So far as any of us knew in¬ 
side, we had everything ready, and wanted to get information as to which 
boxes to put the papers in, and this is what we sent for him for.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ What had you ready when you sent for Mr. Enue?’? 

Answer. —“Everything we had ready was placed in the boxes.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ What papers did you make up after you counted 
that vote V 9 

Answer. —“ We filled all the necessary papers. Those we placed in 
the box are the necessary papers—I can’t name them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you write anything yourself V 9 

Answer. —“ I did. I headed some of them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —•“ Who told you how to head them?” 

Answer. —“ Mr. Ashton had given me a little information previous to 
the election. I don’t recollect what ones I headed. I headed several of 
the papers. Mr. Enue, I believe, wrote on some of the tally lists, pre¬ 
vious to the election. I don’t recollect what it was I wrote. I wrote 
letters and marked figures too.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Look at these papers that Mr. Hirst has handed to 
you and tell which, if any, you wrote?” 

Answer. _“ None of my writing is on this. Mr. Ashton, I believe, as¬ 

sisted us—he said it would save us trouble—previous to the election he 
assisted and after they were made out, before the election. Mr. Enue saw 
them, and said the way they were made out would give us trouble, and 
he stated the way he wanted us to make it out would give us less trouble, 

and we let him do it.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Did you write anybody’s name up stairs, after the 
election ?” 

Answer. — <£ I wrote nobody’s name up there. I forget what I did 
there was something attending my coming there, that it is not necessary 

12 


90 


to mention, and I don’t recollect. Nobody was in the room after the 
election closed on Tuesday night. Mr. Enue was there on the Wednesday 
following the election, just about dusk.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ All Mr. Enue had to do, was to tell in which box to 
put the papers'?” 

Answer .—“That is all the information we wanted. I did not ask him 
myself. McMullen, I believe, it was that he told.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“What were you doing about dusk on Wednesday,— 
between that time and three o’clock on Thursday morning V 9 

Answer. —“ I could not tell exactly what we were doing. I suppose 
we were doing whatever was necessary.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ You say everything was ready when you sent for 
Mr. Enue, and you sent for him to know in which box to put the 
papers; what did you do between the time he was there and three o’clock 
in the morning ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t recollect what we did. I don’t recollect when we 
sealed up the boxes—it must have been sometime on Wednesday after¬ 
noon.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Then the papers must have been in the boxes before 
Mr. Enue came there '?” 

Witness. —“It was Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning. It 
was done just previous to carrying the boxes to Alderman Fletcher’s.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ What did you mean by saying that it was done on 
Wednesday V 9 

Answer. —“ I can’t tell you everything.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Give me one thing you can tell me '?” 

Answ&r. “ All I can tel) you is that after we had everything ready, 
Enue was called in to show us the proper boxes to put these in. He told 
us and they were put in. McMullen sealed the boxes, I believe. I be¬ 
lieve I assisted him in melting the wax. I don’t recollect what seal he 
put on them. He didn’t stamp the wax at all, I believe. This was an 
hour or so before we carried the boxes to the Alderman’s.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ After Mr. Enue had told you what to do, why didn’t 
you take the boxes then?” 

Answer —“ The reason was that we hadn’t them ready. We had to 
get the papers in the boxes before We could take them. I don’t recollect 
how long after it was. Mr. Enue opened the door, came in and showed 
the necessary papers to put in the box and went out.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Had you nothing to eat or drink that evening after 
Mr. Enue went out ?*’ 

Answer. —“Mr. McFall brought us in something now and then. I 
don’t recollect if he brought us in anything after Mr. Enue went away. 
I don’t recollect anything at all concerning the questions you ask me. I 
don’t know of anything that would be of advantage to you at all. The 
mistake mad^e by Wurteim in the list of voters was made about two hours 
after the polls opened, I tkink. The mistake was in omitting to write on 
two or three sheets of paper.” 


91 


Mr. Campbell, —“ Then he left a blank of two or three sheets in his 
list of voters'?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Look at this list, and point out where that blank was.” 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect where it was. It was filled up at different 
times during the day. The whole list was disarranged, and they omitted 
it as they went along. There were two or more blank leaves, I believe. 
The sheets were scattered about.” 

Mr. Campbell. —Had the paper ever been tied together'?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t think it had. A portion had been numbered, and 
these he omitted. I had numbered up to some number—I don’t know 
what it was. They were numbered. I numbered a portion of them. When 
I came to notice, I found he had quit at some short number, and went over 
into hundreds. That was filled up at different times, just as it suited the 
one’s writing.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Then the order of voters on that paper don’t repre¬ 
sent the order of voting'?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. I don’t recollect whether the mistake occurred 
at the bottom of a page or not.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Could it have occurred anywhere else ?” 

Answer. —“I think it must have occurred at the bottom of a page.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ As voters came in they were sometimes written of 
an earlier number than the last voter ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir, they were carried in that way. That mistake was 
a mistake of Wurteim’s. When I went to him, and remarked that he 
was going astray, he said he was unwell, and that Was the reason. I don’t 
know if anything else was the matter with him; he said he was unwell, 
and had the diarrhoea.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Wurteim’s mistake was within the first two hundred 
votes'?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Look and see if he wrote any more ?” 

Witness. —“ I think it was. It was about two hours after the polls 
opened. There is a hand writing on that list which I do not know.” 

Mr. Campbell .—You know Wurteim’s hand writing'?” 

Answer. —“ I do not. I say the writing there I suppose to be Wurteim’s. 
I know my own. I Would not swear to Wurteim’s. I don’t know the last 
name written by Wurteim on that list.” 

Mr. Campbell. —-“It was within the first two hours anyhow?” 

Answer. —“ I think so. I don’t know whether he put the numbers along 
the list as he went, or when the voting commenced. After the polls were 
closed we numbered a portion.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Did Wurteim number his votes as he wrote them 
down ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t know. About two hours after the polls opened I 


92 


went over and looked at his papers, and I noticed his omission. Some had 
been numbered before. I dont’t know whether he numbered them or 
myself. They were numbered before the votes came there. I could not 
tell my numbers now.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“Did you or did you not make any numbers there?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t tell that.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you make any number before a voter came ?” 

Answer .—“No, sir. I am sure of that.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did Wurteim quit when that mistake was pointed 
out ?” 

Answer. —No, sir. He wrote a while after this. The list of voters 
was kept irregularly after that. The name of a voter was inserted just 
where the one keeping the list was disposed to do it. Sometimes the 
blank was filled up, and when the votes didn’t come in so fast, it was carried 
to the blank. 1 can’t tell any man’s name that was carried to that blank. 
Mr. Hay burn kept a window list. There was no mistake in that, that I 
know of. I heard of none. I think I did not write any on Hayburn’s 
list.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you put any numbers on Hayburn’s list ?” 

Answer. —“I don’t know whether I did or not. I am rather inclined 
to think that sometime through the day I did put numbers.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you compare the two lists of voters after the 
election was over ?” 

Answer. —“ They were compared. I was assisting. I called out the 
names on both lists. That was done after the polls were closed. It was 
done up stairs on Wednesday morning. The number of names was 
counted over and found to be alike. There was a difference in the lists on 
account of this mistake, but the numbers agreed ; and where they had 
reference to names, we could find them. We examined both lists, and 
found the same numbers and the same names on them. That was done on 
Wednesday morning, or before we went up stairs, I don’t recollect which. 
I don’t recollect whether they were compared up stairs or down. I judge 
it was down stairs, because I think it would be proper to do it there, and 
I don’t think anything but what was right and proper would have been 
done.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Have you no memory about it ?” 

Answer. —“ Nothing more than I have told you. Hayburn was at one 
list, and whether it was Wurteim or myself at the other one, I don’t 
recollect.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did Wurteim’s health improve so as to be able to at¬ 
tend to his duties on Tuesday night?” 

Answer. —“ He got better. He never was, at any time, too unwell to 
give some little assistance. Sometimes it was much easier for him to 
be at the window than recording names. He was at the window when 
I took his place.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I thought you said, McMullen was at the window ?” 

Answer .—“ McMullen took the tickets. Mr. Wurteim took my side. 
I had one side of the window and McMullen the other. I could not say 


93 


what papers were put into the big box. All the papers we had were put 
into different boxes. The greater number were put in the large box. I 
don’t recollect what papers went in there. When Mr. Enue told 
McMullen what boxes to put the papers in, then they were filled up and 
put in the boxes. I don’t resollect whether they were tied with a string.” 

Mr. Campbell. — 66 Did they go in without being bent.” 

Answer. —“No, sir; they were forced in. McMullen did that. I 
saw the papers he put in. I don’t recollect whether he put in a book or 
not, but I rather think he did. I think he put in a list like this one.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Were there more books than one?” 

Answer. —“ All I can answer is, that all the necessary papers were 
placed in the boxes—all that we were told to put in. I noticed they 
were put in. The papers were collected togetherand placed in the boxes. 
All the officers noticed them go in. The book went in, I think. All the 
necessary papers went in. The list of voters went in. I am not sure of 
anything. Both of them went into the box I think. I am not perfectly sure 
that either went in. All the papers that were required to go in were 
placed there, to the best of my knowledge. None were omitted or kept 
out. There were papers forced in the box. I think the printed book 
went in. If it was necessary that it should go in, I think it went in. 
Mr. McMullen, I think, took the papers to the Prothonatory’s office. I 
didn’t take them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ When and where did you last see the book you kept 
during election day ?” 

Answer. —“ I last saw it going into the box, I believe.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ What do you mean that you last saw going into the 
box ?” 

Answer. —“ This list of voters. I know I saw the list some few 
minutes before they were placed in the boxes. I recollect seeing this list 
as well as the other placed in the boxes. I judge I saw them both to¬ 
gether, and I think they both went in. I never saw either of them since 
till just now. The officers took them to Alderman Fletcher’s. All of 
us went with the boxes, I believe. I don’t know who carried the big 
box. I don’t think I carried it. Alderman Fletcher was not up when 
we got there, and we woke him up to give him the boxes. We gave 
them to him at his residence.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Have you any means of recognizing the seals put on 
them ?” 

Answer. —“ No, I have not. To the best of my knowledge there was 
just common sealing wax put on them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Had you communication with anybody out of doors, 
but Mr. Enue, from Tuesday night till Thursday morning?” 

Answer .—“ No one that I recollect of. There was a man to whom I 
mentioned that I would like to see somebody that was acquainted with the 
way of doing business, and he said he would mention it to Mr. Enue, I 
think, and have him come and tell us. That was Mr, John Lochlin, Com¬ 
missioner of Moyamensing. I didn’t know anything of the rest of the 
election, out of doors.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Nobody knew anything of that inside ?” 


94 


Answer. —“I don’t recollect of hearing any one; only now and then— 
we had nothing more than anybody might have got, situated as we were. 
We heard from the window—persons told us. I was at the window, 
and persons would tell us. Mr. McFall was up and down all the time 
whilst we were there. There were persons below,—what they said I 
don’t recollect, but I know I heard while there, something in reference 
to the rest—but I was not interested; I didn’t pay particular attention 
to it. I don’t remember of looking at a paper from the time we went 
in, to the time we went out.” 

Mr. Campbell. — “ Do you recollect any one piece of information you 
received V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect any, concerning the election. I don’t know 
who the gentleman was who spoke to me at the second story window. 
Somebody mentioned somethiug about the rest of the election. I don’t 
recollect what was said; that was sometime on Wednesday morning; the 
window was up ; I was at the window myself at the time ; nobody else 
was there. I don’t recollect what the man told me, nor the answer I made. 
I don’t recollect the man. Something was said concerning the result of 
the election.” 

Mr. Campbell. —« When you shut up the polls on Tuesday night, did 
you announce to the people through the window, the number of votes 
polled ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell. “ Did anybody else do it in your presence V 9 

Answer. —“ Not that I heard.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you know, when the election closed, how many 
votes had been polled V 9 

Answer. —“ After we counted, we ascertained how many, but we didn’t 
know till we had counted. The votes came in so fast, that we were unable 
to keep the numbers and names at the same time.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did that happen to you while you were writing'?” 

Answer. —“Yes—while I kept the list, the voters came in so fast that I 
was unable to keep them, and I had often to refer to Mr. Hayburn and ask 
him the first and last name—some were omitted. I judge one or two 
names were omitted. What I mean is that we didn’t get them correctly, 
either the first or after names were not correct; their proper names were 
omitted. To the best of my knowledge I think that there was a mistake 
in some of the first or after names. I don’t know who was looking at the 
assessment book at that time.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you ask any man for a voucher while you were 
at the window V 9 

Answer. —“ No, sir. No man that I recollect of was sworn to vouch 
for any one. The only one I know was a man of my name who was chal¬ 
lenged by Mr. Murray, I think, and he was set aside. I don’t recollect 
whether any body else inside looked at the assessment book; that was 
McFall’s business; I didn’t keep the book.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst. —“How long after the ballot boxes were 
a l\ ready was it before you carried them to the Alderman’s 1” 


95 


Answer. —“ I could not tell exactly, but it was as soon as ever we could 
do it. They were all very anxious to get out ; they had been penned up 
there a good while.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Were they ready till all the books and papers were put 

Answer. —“ No, sir. The papers were the last things that went into 
the boxes, and as soon as they went in, the boxes were sealed up. Mr. 
Enue was there on Wednesday, just before dusk.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Are you positive in your memory as to whether all the 
boxes were counted off, and all the papers made out when Mr. Enue came 
there V 9 

Answer. —“Yes, sir, I think they had all been. I judge they had. I 
don’t think they would admit any one into the room till such time as 
everything was done.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“Is that your reason for supposing that everything was 
done before Mr. Enue came V 9 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Did Mr. Enue enter the room, come to the table and 
sit down V 9 

Answer. —“ No, sir. He just gave us the necessary information, and 
went out. He just came inside of the door. We asked in what box the 
papers were to be put, and he said any one. The officers did not admit 
him to the table where the ballots were.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ If the papers had been all ready to be put in the boxes, 
when Mr. Enue came there, would they not have been put in V 9 

Answer. —“ They would, certainly, have been put in. We were all 
anxious to finish and get away.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ What did you hear any one say about the result of the 
election before you left that room V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect of anything in particular; only I suppose 
it is just the same as appeared in the papers. I don’t recollect what it 
was about. I supposed it to be concerning the general ticket, and I think 
something was said about Keyser.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Did the officers of that election, in your presence, seek 
information as to the result in other Districts V 9 

Answer. —“ None that I knew of. I suppose they didn’t inquire more 
than is natural for anybody. Any one inside is as anxious to hear the re¬ 
sult as those outside.” 

Adjourned to meet on to-morrow, Tuesday, February 25th, 1851, at 10, 

A. M. 


96 


Tuesday, February 25,1851.—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

James Breeson, sworn. —“ I went to the polls in the neighborhood of 8 
o’clock. I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, either a little before or 
after 8 o’clock. There were three voted before me. A young man by 
the name of William Pass went with me to the polls; he voted immedi¬ 
ately after me, the next one, and then we both left the polls together after 
he voted.” 

Cross-examined. —“I resided in Ninth, between Christian and Carpen¬ 
ter. I have been living in Second Ward going on ten or twelve years. I 
was working in the same house where I boarded. I was at work that day, 
and quit in the evening, after dark. I went to the election in the neigh¬ 
borhood of 8 o’clock.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you go before or after supper ?” 

Answer. —“ People generally have supper before eight o’clock.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you go before or after supper'?” 

Answer. —“Of course, after my supper. William Pass went with me. 
He resides in the same house that I did; he resides there now.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ How long did you remain on the election ground V 3 

Answer. —“ Till I got my vote in and this young man’s, and then we 
both left. I can’t say exactly how long we were on the ground; two or 
three voted before me.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ How long did you stay on the election ground?” 

Answer. —“Just as short time as I could get our votes in. I saw some 
persons there that I knew when I went there. I saw William H. Fagan and 
several more. I saw Robert Murray. I believe he was at the window.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did you go from the election ground immediately 
home ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. I went up to South street, and went down South 
to Sixth, and down Sixth to First Ward House. I don’t recollect exactly 
what was the first house I went into after leaving the election ground. 
After I voted I went to a house at the corner of Charles street, i went 
in there and had some segars. T his other young man was along with me. 
There was a person there who sold segars. Pie is not an acquaintance of 
mine, but of the young man I was along with.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“When you went there, how long did you have to wait 
at the polls?” 

Answer. —“ I hadn’t my watch out. There was three or four men 
voted before me, and that was all that were voting at the time. I can’t 
tell the name of the man who voted just before me, nor of any of the 
three voting before me. I don’t know whether there was a line formed 
behind me. I went away immediately as soon as he got his vote in. 
There was a crowd of-people on the street, on the pavement, and about 
the polls. I don’t know the names of them. I didn’t take any correct 
look at them all.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Do you know Michael Breeson ?” 


Answer.—“ I know him. I don’t know at what time he voted. I am 
acquainted with him. He is an uncle of mine, I believe. He lives in 
Milton, between Tenth and Eleventh. I didn’t see him at the election 
ground that night.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You do not know how long after you, he voted'?” 

Answer. “^o, sir,—nor how long before. I don’t know if he voted 
before or after me. I have not spoken to him on the subject since the 
election. I was subpoenaed last night. Mr. Neil Breeson is my father. 
I don’t know at what time he voted.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ This vote is No. 886, seven after Mr. Landon.” 

William Pass, sworn. —“I voted at the last election in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing. I went to the polls with Mr. Breeson, the young man just 
examined. I voted just after he did. I voted at about eight o’clock, as 
near as I can tell. No. 887, on the list.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I reside in Ninth, first door below Marriott’s Lane. 
I left home after supper and went straight from there to the polls.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“How many people were on the ground waiting to 
vote when you got there ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t know as to the number, but there was a good many 
people standing, ready; I did’nt take my position in the line. Mr. Breeson, 
I believe, voted just before me.” 

Mr Campbell. —“Who voted next before him?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know—several voted before him—some three or 
four. I don’t know who was just after me. I was not acquainted with 
many there. I know Robert Murray, and he was about the only man I 
knew. We went up Eighth to South, down South street, after we left 
the polls.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ What was the first house you went to?” 

Answer. —“I believe it was the first ward house. We went up to 
South and down to Sixth. It was where the election was held. I didn’t 
see any one there that I knew except the person who was with me.” 

Moses Henry , sworn .—“ I voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the 
last election. I voted as near 9 o’clock as I can recollect; it might be a 
little over or it might be under. [No. 972 is Morris Henry. See also, 
says Mr. Campbell , No. 804*.J 

Cross-examined. —“ I went to the polls within a few minutes of the 
time I voted. I was not detained long on the ground. I went towards 
the neighborhood where I boarded.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Did anybody go with you ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, Edward Develin. I don’t know whether he voted 
or not. I don’t know exactly who voted alongside of me.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Who did you speak to at the time ?” 

Answer. —“ I spoke to Patrick McAlane. I don’t recollect any one 
else. Edward Develin went with me there. I don’t recollect who I 
gave my ticket to at the window. My vote was not challenged by any¬ 
body. I was on the assessment list.” 

13 


98 


Mr. Campbell .—“ Can you tell us of anybody whom you saw on the 
election ground V 9 

Answer. —“ I recollect Patrick McAlane. I don’t recollect anybody 
else. I cannot tell who voted immediately before me. I cannot tell the 
name of any one who voted while I was on the ground. I cannot tell 
whether Mr. Develin voted. I took a slight look in the window. I don’t 
recollect who was writing. I don’t recollect who I got my ticket from. 
I got it from some person on the ground. 

Question .—“ Which two gentlemen stood watching on each side of the 
window V 9 

Answer. —I cannot say. Mr. Develin boarded in the same house with 
me. My first name is Moses. I did not have to repeat it more than once 
before they understood it in the house. Nobody accompanied me to the 
polls but Mr. Develin.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Mr. Develin’s name is No. 800.” 

Re-examined. —“ They did’nt challenge my vote.” 

Mr. Hirst .— a When you mentioned your name did they look on the 
assessment list for it V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t know whether they did or not.” 

Mr. Hirst. “ Do you recollect whether they said they found it there V 9 

Answer. “ I don’t recollect whether they said so. I was not chal¬ 
lenged.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ The name of Moses Henry, weaver, Milton street, below 
Eleventh, is on the assessment list.” 

Peter Donnelly , sworn. —“ I was Judge of the last election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing. I was elected by the people. I think the polls 
opened between eight and ten o’clock.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Was there any delay in opening the polls ?” 

Answer. “ All the officers were inside, but the aldermen was not 
there.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ At what time did the polls close V 9 

Answer. —“On the stroke of ten. It was not done striking when the 
polls closed. I think Mr. Fagan told us to shut the polls when it was 
striking, and I heard the town clock striking.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ During what portion of the time that the election was 
over was there the greatest number of votes polled ?” 

Answer .—“ Anybody knows that in the evening most of the votes were 
polled ; for I calculate we polled as many in an hour and a half as we did 
nearly in two hours ; for the voters came in actually at night; it is my 
opinion that they came in then two for one in any hour of the day. To 
the best of my knowledge, that is a fact. That there came in two votes 
from six o’clock till ten for one at any other hour of the day. As the 
tickets were polled by the voters they were placed in the boxes. Every 
ticket that came in through the window went into the boxes, and par¬ 
ticular care was taken. If I had seen any rascality between either of the 
parties I would have left the room immediately, for I was bound to do 


99 


justice. I didn’t know either of the men on the day of the election, 
neither Mr. Reed or Mr. Kneass. If I had met them in the street I would 
not have known either of them. I saw nothing but justice. There was a 
man named Vertine voted, and Mr. Wurteim, one of the clerks, remarked 
that he was no brother or relation of his, I think, and we all laughed at 
him for denying him ; that is all 1 recollect of the case. When the polls 
closed I think there was 1223 votes polled—at least they reported that. 

I think some of the clerks reported it—on one of the lists there was 1223 
votes.” 

Mr Hirst. — c< What was done immediately aftei the polls closed V 9 

Answer. — <c I think the clerks began to fix the tally lists. I think the 
tickets came in so fast in the evening, between seven and ten o’clock, 
that they made the reply that they could not number them and take them 
down both at once. I think there was a mistake somewheres. Mr. Wur¬ 
teim turned over two or three leaves, I think, in taking down the names. 
He was sick some part of the day. I think that mistake was made be¬ 
tween ten and eleven o’clock in the day, that we took notice of it. I 
will not be certain. Mr. Wurteim was bad often. It was a complaint 
that he had to retire pretty often.” 

Mr. Hirst.- “ What was done with the tally lists by the clerks, after 
the polls closed V 9 

Answer. “ There was nothing done to it. One was numbering and 
was smarter than the other. I think Hayburn’s was numbered and carried 
out as we went along. I saw no fixing on it. The first count was given 
out by that. I think it was about ten or fifteen minutes after the polls 
closed that they counted up the tally list. It may have been twenty 
minutes. I won’t be certain. All they had to do was to add up this 
tally list, or voter’s list, or what you call it. I think it was Mr. Hayburn 
did that. I am not positive which, but I think Hayburn added up his own 
list. By adding up the list of voters, I mean counting up what votes 
came in.” 

Mr. Hirst. — u Does that look like the list of voters ; was it made out in 
that form?” [List of voters shown to the witness.] 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Explain to the Court how it was turned over.” 

Answer .—“ He turned over the leaves, and there were two or three 
blank ones in between, to the best of my recollection. I can’t say for 
certain how long it took the clerks to go over the list of voters, and cor¬ 
rect it, and add it up. After that was done, I think the first thing we 
did was to count some tickets. I think we counted the amendment ticket 
first. I am sure we did.” 

Mr Hirst. — c£ Were the papers on which the votes were afterwards 
placed, ready made out when the polls closed ?” 

Answer. —“ All was ready. I think they were. I think we began to 
count off the Amendment ticket between eleven and twelve o’clock, and 
finished between four and five, to the best of my knowledge j I think it 
was between three and four. I think Bill McMullen counted the tickets 
first, Megary next, and then I counted them. We put ten in ea.ch bundle, 
and then called them out every ten myself, and I put them in the box 


100 


myself. They went over the tickets one by one. I saw them count them 
in tens, and I found no mistake in it when the bundle came to me. There 
was no eight or nine or eleven in them, they were all tens. After the 
Amendment was counted, some of the officers inside said they wanted their 
breakfast; I can’t say which it was.” 

Question .—“ Was there any supper or eating between the time you 
closed the polls and this time'?” 

Answer. —“I think before night, I was sent some supper on the day of 
the election.” 

Question. — u After you had finished counting off the Amendment, what 
was done ?” 

Answer. —“ Mr. McFall said he could not get any breakfast ready for 
them as long as they were there. He said there was a private room up 
stairs that belonged to none of the family, and he asked us, would we go 
up stairs. We agreed to go up. I carried three boxes, and Bill McMullen 
carried two, I think, up before me, and the papers. He was walking up 
stairs before me. There was a big table up stairs, and then we commenced 
counting the Commissioners ticket, I think.” 

Question. —“ Explain how that was counted off?” 

Answer. —“It was counted off in the same way—in tens. I did the 
same for that that we did for the other.” 

Question .—“ After that was counted off, what was done V* 

Answer. —“ The tally list was counted off. After they were counted in 
tens we called out ‘ tally? the same as the rest, and then we got through 
with that, I think, between 12 and 1 o’clock, to the best of my know¬ 
ledge. It might have been a little sooner, but I can’t say positively. 
Then we commenced counting the box for these two gentlemen—Mr. 
Reed and Mr. Kneass. It was for them that was running for the county 
offices—Mr. Reed and Mr. Kneass. 

Question .—“ Did you see that box opened V* 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Were you present all the time ?” 

Answer. —“ I think I may have been five, or six, or eight minutes in 
the yard ; barring that occasion I was present at all the counting. I may 
have been gone once or twice.” 

Question. —“ From the time you opened till you closed was anybody in 
the room 

Answer. —“ I think we sent for Joseph Enue.” 

Question. —“ From the time the election opened, between eight and ten 
in the morning of Tuesday, till you opened the box for County officers, 
was anybody in the room where the ballot boxes were except the officers'?” 

Answer. —“ Not in my presence. Mr. McFall would go out, and I 
would’always turn the key when he went out; and he had to knock at 
the door and teH who it was before I let him in.” 

Question. —“ How did you go over the County officers 

Answer. — We sorted them out and counted each in the same way_ 


101 


each ten in a bundle. Then we called out tally for them in the same way. 
Then alter we got them all done, I put the lid on the box. As each box 
was counted, I shut the lid on it.” 

Question. —“ What time did you get through this ticket with Mr. Reed’s 
and Mr. Kneass’s name on it ?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t say positively what hour we got done. Next we 
counted the box for State officers, I think. All the tickets that went in 
went through the same process. All the boxes were counted in the same 
way, and no difference made in the counting of any box, that I saw. I 
saw no alterations in any of the boxes that had been counted.” 

Question. — u What took place as to Mr. Enue?” 

Answer. — u I think when the last box was counting, some one said they 
didn’t know what box to put the papers in. I think John McFall was 
sent to Mr. Enue, to see if there was any particular box to put the papers 
in. I think the reply was there was no difference, only which box had 
the most room in it.” 

« 

Question. — u When Mr. Enue came into the room, did he come to the 
table, or handle any of the boxes ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. The county officers had then been counted and I 
think they were adding the last box—Keyser’s ticket. I think Mr. Key- 
ser’s tickets were counted at this time, and we were counting the tickets 
of the gentleman who ran against him. If we were not counting we were 
opening some of them. 1 can’t say positively whether the tickets were 
all counted or not. I think they were sorting some of them.” 

Question .— u At what time did you get through the whole of the busi¬ 
ness ?” 

Answer. — “ To the best of my knowledge, I think it was half past 2 
o’clock. I knew when I went home after leaving the boxes at Alderman 
Fletcher’s. I think it was about five minutes of 3.” 

Question. —“ Did you sleep from the time the election opened till then?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. I didn’t think it was right for me to go to sleep 
then.” 

Question. —“ After the tickets were all placed in the boxes, what did 
you do with the papers that you sent to inquire of Mr. Enue about ?” 

Answer. —“ We put them in the box, to the best of my knowledge. I 
think all the papers that were inquired for at the same time we put them 
in the box.” 

Question. “ What papers did you see go in the box beside the ballots ?” 

Answer. —“ I will not say what ones. There was some small papers 
and a big large paper. It seemed like one that we wrote and took down 
the lists on all day—taking down the voters. There went a paper in,—I 
will not say positively if it was the same as this [list of voters ]. I can 
neither read or write. I asked whether Mr. Wurteim’s or Mr. Hayburn’s 
should go in, and I think they made reply that it didn’t make any differ¬ 
ence. I asked the whole set of them. I think I asked McMullen, or 
some of them, which list would be put in, and he replied that it made.no 
difference which. I think it was at the same time that we were sealing 


102 


up the papers, after we put the tape round them. I held my finger on 
the tape while Mr. Wurteim burned the sealing wax upon them.” 

Question. —“ Did the big paper go in the same box as the small ones ?” 

Answer. —“ I think not. I will not be positive. I helped to seal up 
every one of the boxes, and sometimes I put some of the sealing wax on 
myself. I don’t know if I could remember how these boxes were sealed 
up if I saw them now. I think they were sealed at the end, the bottom, 
and the top. I think it was. I will not say for certain.” 

Question .—“ How were they sealed at the end V 9 

Answer. —“I think it was about in the centre of the box. The tape 
was sealed against the box, I think. I am not certain.” 

Question. —“ You saw during the day, the list of names that was 
furnished by the County Commissioners to the officers, was it like that V 9 

[Mr. Hirst’s note book.] 

Answer .—“I think it was a little larger than that.” 

Question. —“ Where was that book put after the counting was finished V 9 

Answer. —“I can’t say positively whether it went into the box or not. 
I think McMullen put all the papers in the boxes, and to the best of my 
knowledge, I think it went in along with the rest.” 

Question. —“Did you see the bundle of papers done up by the judge, 
Mr. Enue V 9 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“I want to know whether all the papers connected with the 
election, were put either in the box or in that bundle ?” 

Answer .—“ They were, to the best of my knowledge and belief, we 
didn’t know who would be the return judge at the time ; we kept out the 
paper for the return judge, and the rest went into the boxes; all that I 
could see.” 

Question .—“ From the counting off of County officers, till you took the 
boxes to Aid. Fletcher, was anybody in the room ?” 

Answer. — u Nobody but Mr. Enue, to the best of my knowledge, and 
he was not near the boxes—nobody was in in my presence. There was a 
man’s arm came in to reach me my breakfast. He reached in his hand.” 

Question .—“ When you went up stairs in that room, how did you man¬ 
age, when you went to your meals ?” 

Answer. —“ I sent word to the man not to fetch me any more, that I 
didn’t want any more till we were done counting. I thought we would 
get done sooner. The rest of the officers went out to dinner, and Mr. 
McFall and I sat along with the boxes.” 

Question. —“You didn’t leave your room for your meals from the time 
you went into it?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ After the election closed, were any names placed upon 
the list of voters, except the names of those who voted ?” 

Witness. — u How was that ?” 


103 


Question .— u Were any names placed on the list of voters except those 
who voted V 9 

Answer. —“ If some of you will show me the thing I will tell you.” 

Question. —“ During all that time were any names added to the list of 
voters ?” 

Answer. —“ That is a queer question to ask a man who was sworn in to 
do justice in the morning. If I had seen any partiality or rascality on 
either side, I would have gone out. Because one of them was a Democrat 
and the other a Whig. I was not going to swear a lie for either of them. 
I didn’t know either of them.” 

Question. — u At the times when you were absent, were you absent 
long enough for anybody to have added three hundred or more names to 
the list of voters V 9 

Answer. — u I think, from the time I went in that morning, I was about 
three or four times out in the yard, and no other place. I heard a person 
say that I was in the bar room five minutes, but I was not in the bar room, 
I was not more than five or six minutes in the yard at once. I think I 
was out three or four times from the opening of the polls till we went to 
deposit the ballot boxes in Alderman Fletcher’s house. To the best of my 
knowledge I was not longer out than five or six’minutes. I was not out 
of John McFall’s building, only in the yard, the whole blessed time. I 
think Hayburn kept the list of voters that was counted up. There was no 
names put on to the best of my knowledge. If I had seen that I would 
have risen up. I saw no rascality with any man.” 

Question. —“ Could any tickets have been changed after the ballot boxe s 
were opened, without your seeing them 1 ?” 

Answer. —“I will not say positive as to that. If there was rascality in 
it, they might have done it, while I was out, but at no other time, they 
did’nt do it except the times I was out. I did’nt see them making any 
other alterations on it.” 

Question .—“ When you were out, who did you leave behind in the 
room I” 

Answer. —“ I think the officers of the election. I will not say positive 
whether these was all. I think I never left, barring they were all there. 
I think there never was two out at once, only while they were at their 
dinners, and then I was sitting in the room with the boxes.” 

Question. —“ Was each ticket voted at that election counted by you on 
both sides ?” 

Answer. —“ I think, to the best of my knowledge, yes. They were all 
counted by me, only I think about eight or ten. There was a few scratched 
tickets that I didn’t count—loose ones—one name here and another there, 
as they told me. I was by when Wurteim counted them. It was for 
Marshal of Police. I counted every ticket but that.” 

Question. — a What was in these tickets V 9 

Answer. —“ They told me they put each scratched ticket by itself— 
there were ten or twelve—one name scratched off and another name 
wrote on.” 

Question .—Had you a brother-in-law named Salley'?” 


104 


Answer. —I had. His first name is Francis. I think you have not a 
man by that name except himself. He voted at night. I can’t say positive 
at what time it was. I thought he was long coming to vote, and I had a 
mind to send for him, and I told some one to tell him to come over. This 
was early in the afternoon. He boarded with me. I think it was Friday, 
four weeks since, he was buried.” 

Question .— u Did the clerks take the first and last names correctly ? 
What took place upon that subject ? Did they have to ask them more than 
once?” 

Answer. — <C I heard some ask, when they had their backs turned to the 
polls, to get their first or last names. I often heard them. They were 
pushing at the window, and when they would miss the first or last name, 
they often called them back.” 

Cross-examined .— Question. —“ What time did you vote yourself?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t positively tell. I think it was about eleven o’clock* 
Mr. Fletcher was on the opposite side of the window. It may be later or 
earlier. I think we all voted at once.” 

Question. —“Did you get your dinner that day?” 

Answer. —“ We eat something in that room. I don’t know that we 
got any regular dinner at all. I think it was between twelve and one 
o’clock, when my man sent me in something.” 

Question. — <£ After the election was over, can you tell me how many 
books you put in the boxes ?” 

Answer. —“ I cannot.” 

Question. —“ How many thick papers ?” 

Answer .— u I think there was one large paper went in. I think McMul¬ 
len put in all the papers. That was after we had all the votes counted. 
I should say it was about two o’clock. We did that, and as soon as we 
got them in, and put the sealing wax on and tied them, we took them to 
Aid. Fletcher’s house. I think the small papers were put in a paper that 
kept them together, or tied with tape. I will not say positively whether 
the large paper was tied with tape, or some other papers round it.” 

Question. —“ You counted off the Amendment ticket down stairs, first ?” 

Answer. —“ I think we did.” 

Question. —“ Did they read the tickets out loud?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. Each ticket was read out loud. After the lids 
were closed of the boxes, we put it to vote what box would be counted 
first. We just talked of it among'ourselves. I left all the boxes except 
the Amendment behind me, on the end of the settee.” 

Question .—“ You took the Amendment box and put it on the table and 
turned the tickets out ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir. They were all sorted over, and then every man’s 
name was read out loud, the way I could hear it. When one would open 
a ticket, they were all sorted and left both to one side ; then when they 
came over again, they looked over them a second time, to see if there 
was a mistake. I took one ticket and put it to one side, and they were 
counted. They said that such and such a one was for such and such a 
one.” 


105 


Question. “ There was no man’s name read out down stairs'?” 

Answer .—“ I will not say that positively. I think there was.” 

Question .—“What 4 was in this ticket for the Amendment, was there any 
man’s name at all'?” 

Answer. —“ There were men’s names in it. The Amendment was the 
consolidation of the other. The Amendment was for no officers. There 
were no names read.” 

Question. —“ The amendment ticket had no names on it '?” 

Answer. —“ I will not say. They handed them over one after the other 
and counted them. I can’t say positive whether they were read out loud 
to me or not.” 

Question .—“Then you just counted the tickets as they were handed to 
you'?” 

Answer .—“ I counted them as they were handed to me.” 

Question. —“ You were not able to say whether they were for or against 
the Amendment, except what they told you'?” 

Answer .—“ They were saying there were very few Amendment tickets 
come in.” 

Question. —“After the election was over, you could not tell, yourself, 
which way the tickets were, only the way the men told you'?” 

Answer. —“ No.” 

Question. — <£ What man told you these tickets were for the Amend¬ 
ment, and those against'?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect which of them.” 

Question. —“ Who gave the twist to the tickets'?” 

Answer. —“ I did—after they were counted off.” 

Question. —“ When you went up stairs was it before light V 9 

Answer. —“ It was about daybreak.” 

Question. —“ You got your breakfast up there'?” 

Answer. —“ About nine o’clock the man brought me some breakfast.” 

Question .—“ Was that the time the officers went down stairs'?” 

Answer. —“ I think they got breakfast before that.” 

Question .—“ Where did the others get their breakfast V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t know. I don’t know whether they took breakfast 
till dinner time. I don’t know if they left the room till dinner time or 
not.” 

Question. —“ You got your breakfast up stairs, did you count any other 
ticket before breakfast'?” 

Answer. —“ My breakfast was sent up about nine, and I didn’t eat till 
the tickets were counted.” 

Question. —“ Did you count any other votes before you eat your break¬ 
fast V 9 

Answer. —“ I think the Commissioners’ was counting.” 

14 


106 


Question. -“ Did you eat your breakfast before the Commissioners’ were 
done or after ?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t say, positively, whether it was before or after.” 

Question •—“ Was it while it was going on?” 

Answer _“ I don’t think I finished my breakfast till these were counted. 

I was tired, sitting up all night, and hadn’t much notion of eating.” 

Question .—“ The Commissioners’ ticket you counted off ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Were there scratched tickets in that?” 

Answer. —“ I think there was.” 

Question. —“For them you had to take the names from these other 
gentlemen?” 

Answer. —“Just the same as I did below. I think each name was read 
on these tickets.” 

Question. —“Are you sure of that?” 

Answer. —“ I will not say positively that they were ; but to the best of 
my knowledge and belief they were. There was some scratched tickets.” 

Question .—“ When they turned the ballots out upon the table, did they 
separate the scratched tickets from the others ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. They took them as they came along—the scratched 
tickets were in one part, and the others in another.” 

Question. —“Then they did separate them?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“Then they went on to read every ticket that was not 
scratched?” , 

Answer. —“ No, sir. Whatever man’s name was on them, no matter 
what was scratched off; whatever one was put on, got it.” 

Question. —“Were the tickets that were not scratched read out loud?” 

Answer. —“ I think they were all read over, and if there was a name 
scratched, and another man’s name put on it, I think that man got it.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You told me the first thing they did, was to separate 
the scratched tickets from the others.” 

Witness. —“ They opened the tickets, and whatever man’s name was on 
them they left each ticket, by itself.” 

Question. —“ Were the full tickets read out loud ?” 

Answer.—“ X think, to the best of my knowledge, they were.” 

Question. —“ At what time did Wurteim get sick ?” 

Answer. —“ I think when I first heard mention of it, it was between 
ten and eleven o’clock. I can’t say what was the matter with him, only 
his running out in the yard. Nothing else was the matter that I heard.” 

Question. —“Did he take any customary remedies in that disease?” 

Answer.—“ I think during the day he asked John McFall to bring him 


107 


in a glass of mullygahly. He was not used to drinking that, and he 
thought it would do him good.” 

Question .—“ Was it while he was writing that this mistake was dis¬ 
covered ?” 

Answer. —I think he turned over three sheets. I don’t say it was while 
he was writing, but in turning them over.” 

Question. —“ Then the sheets were tied together at the top ?” 

Answer .—“ The other-end was not tied. I think, to the best of my 
impression, that the top was tied.” 

Question .—“ In turning over, he turned two leaves by mistake ?” 

Answer. —“ I think so, to the best of my knowledge. I heard a fuss 
among themselves, that they ought to be particular in correcting it. I 
think it was Megary or McMullen.” 

Question. —“Did you see the mistake yourself?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir. I think Mr. Megary took notice of it. I think 
he took the list sometime when Mr. Wurteim was sick. I think the 
mistake occurred by turning over two leaves. I didn’t go and look at the 
leaves. I heard them talking about them, and I went and looked at first, 
when they took notice.” 

Question .—“Were the leaves blank leaves?” 

Answer .—“ I think they were. I think they were numbered. I think 
they were put down along the side. I thought they were numbered, but 
I will not say for certain.” 

Question. —“Did the votes come in very fast that night?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ What did you do during the day ?” 

Answer. —“I sat up there at the end of the table, and when any one 
was examined by either side, I believe some of them were left to me to 
say if they should come in or not. If they were challenged on their pa¬ 
pers, no vote came in till they showed their papers to the officers in the 
inside, without the officers knew it, or they sent them back for them. We 
will say if this gentleman came in, if his vote was challenged, he had to 
show a voucher or go for his papers.” 

Question. —“ When a voter came up, who looked at the assessment 
list ?” 

Answer .—“ I think it was John McFall.” 

Question. —“ Suppose the man’s name was on the assessment list ?” 

Answer .—“ I should say they were asked, if we didn’t know him or he 
was not challenged on the outside. If I knew he was a voter, I would 
let him come in.” 

Question. —“ Was every man who was not on the assessment list asked 
to bring ‘ a voucher ?’ ” 

Answer.—' “I can’t say positively for that,but I know there was a great 
many challenged, and any one who was challenged, had to produce what¬ 
ever he was challenged for.” 


108 


Question .—“ Were any names written down in the assessment book 
daring that day ?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge. It may or may not have been done, 
but not in my presence, that I could see.” 

Question. —“ When these men came there so fast in the evening, be¬ 
tween eight and ten o’clock, that they could not get their right names ?” 

Witness .—“I have seen them call them back to get their first or last 
names.” 

Question .—“ Who had the assessment book then ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t recollect who had it. I am not positive, but I think 
John McFall had it.” 

Question .—“ When they came in so fast in the evening, did they either 
produce vouchers or were known to some of the officers of the election V 9 

Answer. —“ Any one who came during the evening, that was challenged 
on the outside, had to produce what he was challenged for, if the officers 
inside didn’t know him.” 

Question. —“ If a man was not challenged on the outside he was not to 
produce vouchers'?” 

Answer .—“ I think not, if he was on the Assessor’s list.” 

Question .—“ If he was not on the Assessor’s list, did he V 9 

Answer. —“ I think he did. I vouched for my brother-in-law, He was 
on the Assessor’s list, but they could not find him out, they were in such 
a hurry, and I think I heard John McFall say he could not attend to it, 
and take it all down.” 

Question. —“ Who else produced a voucher?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect.” 

Question .—“ Can you give the name of any man, between seven and 
ten o’clock, that produced a voucher ?” 

Answer. —“I can’t say positively.” 

Examination of witness suspended to take up the examination of 

John Ferry , sworn.— u I voted at the general election in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, last fall j as near as I can tell, I voted between seven 
and eight o’clock I could not tell which hour it was nearest.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“No. 879 on the list, two votes after Mr. Landon.” 

Cross-examined. — Question. —“Who voted next to you?” 

Answer.— il I cannot tell. I don’t know who voted about the same 
time as I did. George Ferry voted before I did. He lives in the neigh¬ 
borhood. I suppose he had all day. I was out at work.” 

Question. —“ Did you produce any voucher ?” 

Answer.— No, sir. I was waiting about 4 or 5 minutes as near as I 
can tell. There was pretty much of a rush on the step.” 

Question *—“Did anybody ask you any questions?” 


109 


Answer .—■« No, sir. I met my brother and a Mr. Collins and they left 
tickets for me ?” 

Question .—“ What time did you get home from your work?” 

Answer . “ When we are not very busy we leave about sundown, and 

then we went home.” 

Question. —“ Where did you vote ?” 

Answer.— 6i At Moyamensing Hall.” 

Peter Donnelly , continued. — Question. —“ How many people had 
vouchers between 7 and 10 o’clock at night ?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t tell that.” 

Question. —“ Can you tell any man who voted between 7 and 10 that 
there was a voucher for ?” 

Answer. —“ I cannot tell.” 

Question. — i( How long have you been in the ward ?” 

Answer .— “ Not more than two years this time.” 

Question. —“ Were you well acquainted with the inhabitants of the 
ward ?” 

Answer .—Yes, sir. I don’t know Mr. Primrose. I don’t know John 
Moss. There are actually people within a square of myself whose names 
I don’t know.” 

Question. —“ Can you give the name of anybody who voted between 
seven and ten o’clock at night, who had a voucher ?” 

Answer .— f< I cannot.” 

Question. —“ Can you give the name of the last man who voted ?” 

Answer. —“ I cannot. I cannot give the name of any man who voted 
within the last hour.” 

Question. —“ Can you give the name of a man who voted between eight 
and ten o’clock—the last two hours ?” 

Answer. —“ I think it was later than that that Mr. Vertine voted, who 
the remark was passed on. I don’t know him. 

Question. —“ Can you give us the name of a man that you knew ?” 

Answer. —“ I cannot, to the best of my knowledge.” 

Question. —■“ When you twisted the tickets, did you twist them tight ?” 

Answer. —“ I twisted them as tight as I could, and not tear them.” 

Question. “ Was the assessment list written or printed ?” 

Answer. —“ I think there was print on it.” 

Question. —“ You didn’t go to sleep at all from Tuesday till Thursday 
morning ?” 

Answer. —“ Not till I went home to my own house. I think there was 
other gentlemen there that didn’t sleep any more than I did. The gentle¬ 
man that was sick, I will not say whether he did or did not take sleep. 
He had to lie down while he was sick on the settee. I slept none during 


110 


the whole time. I think I was not in the bar room, only one time I reached 
in my hand for a drink of water to the barkeeper.” 

Question. —“ Who got the sealing wax'?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know. I held the boxes and helped put the wax 
on them. I think there was sealing wax on the sides and both ends.” 

Question. —“ You twisted the papers as these are in the box'?” 

Answer. —“I think that is the way I twisted them.” 

Question. —“ Who wrote the papers?” 

Answer. —“ I think it was the clerks, to the best of my opinion.” 

Question. —“You made your mark, did you?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, I think I did to all of them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You did’nt make your mark to a great many of them 
—look at this, there is no mark of yours on it. I find these papers in 
this little box; where did you put the rest of them ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know which box they went into.” 

Question. —“ These tickets were all twisted up by you ?” 

Answer. —“If they are the tickets of the Second Ward, Moyamensing? 
they were twisted by me.” 

Question. —“ Did you twist tickets in that way ?” 

[The witness is shown some tickets.] 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir; at the time the papers were so damp, that if I 
had twisted them harder they would have torn ; and then I counted them 
a second time over to be sure of them. I twisted them so as not to tear 
them.” 

Question. —“ Is your mark on that paper?” [Showing him a paper.] 

Answer .—I can’t say whether it is or not, the ink has been spilt over 
it—the ink bottle was spilt on the table in mistake.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst. — Question .—“ I understand you, that in 
looking at these tickets you recognise the way they are twisted ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. 

Question. —“ I understand you to say you twisted the tickets yourself.” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, everything that is twisted.” 

Question .—“ As you twisted each bundle of tickets, what did you do 
with each bundle ?” 

Answer. —“ I took them out and counted them a second time, and made 
them call them to make them as correct as I could. I think there is not 
many of them I didn’t count twice. There was not a bundle that went 
in that I didn’t count a second time for fear of making a mistake.” 

Question. —“ When were they put by the clerks on the tally list?” 

Answer. —“ It was at that time the clerks put it on the tally list. I 
put it down myself on every mark of the ten. 

Question .—“ Every ticket was read from which one of the officers re¬ 
quired that to be done ?” 


Ill 


Answer .—“ 1 think they said it was a customary thing for that to be 
done, and if there was any scratch ticket it was laid out and summed up 
in the tally lists—the odd tickets.” 

Question .—“ In how many cases when voters applied to vote were 
voucher’s produced'?” 

Answer. —“I can’t say positively how many, but there was a good 
many.” 

Question .—“ Do you recollect any instance in which a vote was received 
where the name was not on the assessment list, without a voucher, or the 
voter was known to the inspectors ?” * 

Answer. —“ I think not to the best of my knowledge. I think there 
was not any barring a voucher, barring those on the assessment list.” 

Question .—“ You got dinner on the day of the election between twelve 
and one o’clock'?” 

Answer. —“ I think so. I eat in the room where the tickets were 
counted. I eat none that day, only what was sent to me at that time.” 

Question. —“ You find your mark to the oath of office.” [Papers shown 
him.] ,|i 

Answer. —“ If those are the papers belonging to the election that is my 
mark.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I kept a piece of paper while the tickets were 
counted. It was for my own curiosity, every ten I counted I put down 
a mark with a pencil. I don’t know what became of the paper. I had it 
to keep everything correct for myself’” 

Judge Kelley.—“ At what time during the day were the most vouchers 
produced for people not on the assessment list.” 

Witness. —“ I think there was a few during all the day as well as at 
night. I don’t say there was as many during the day as at night.” 

Question. —“At which time were there most?” 

Answer. —“ I think there was as many in the evening as at any other 
time.” 

William McMullen , sworn. — Question .—You were an inspector of the 
last general election in the Second Ward, Moyamensing?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“ What time did the polls open ?” 

Answer. —“Between 8 and 9 o’clock. They closed precisely at 10.” 

Question. —“ During the election who took the tickets from the voters ?” 

• i 

Answer. —“ I did, the best part of the day and night.” 

Question. —“As they were received, where were they deposited?” 

Answer. —“ In each box that was placed there for them.” 

Question. —“During what portion of the time that the election was 
going was the greatest number of votes polled in proportion?” 

Answer. —“From 9 until 10 o’clock in the evening.” 


112 


Question. —“ Was the voting during that hour constant or slow?” 

Answer. —“ Constant.” 

Question. —“How was the voting during the rest of the evening, from 
6 till 9?” 

Answer. —There was a steady stream of voters all the evening. Between 
9 and 10 they were a little faster. They hurried us up.” 

Question. —“ When you closed the polls how many votes had been re¬ 
ceived ?” 

Answer. —“ 1223.” 

Question .—“ What was done on the closing of the polls?” 

Answer. “ When the window was closed, there was a difference in 
the list of voters, that is in the number of them. We had to compare 
the lists and make the numbers agree. That took us a long while. Then 
there was some of the tally lists and papers that were not filled up, and 
we had to fill the heading of them up. After that was done we went to 
work to count the Amendment ticket; when we got through with the 
Amendment, it was nigh daylight as near as could be. The officers were 
then hungry, and they asked McFall to give them some refreshments, and 
he said without they left the kitchen he could not give them any. So we 
moved the boxes up stairs. We then went to work to count the Com¬ 
missioners’ ticket. When we got them opened and sorted out breakfast 
was ready.” 

Question. —“ Was there a ticket in the Amendment that was written 
iustead of printed?” 

Answer. —“ There were printed tickets. I don’t recellect whether 
there were any written or not. When we got the Commissioners tickets 
open and assorted, breakfast was ready, and then we went down to break¬ 
fast and Donnelly remained in the room to watch the boxes. When we 
were done our breakfast we went up stairs, and Donnelly went down and 
got his breakfast. Donnelly was the judge. When he was done his 
breakfast he came up stairs, and we went to work and counted the Com¬ 
missioners’ ticket, then we counted the County officers and then we went 
on with the State officers. I think it was about 4 o’clock in the after¬ 
noon before we got through with the County officers, to the best of my 
knowledge. Then we went on with State officers, and finished that, I 
think, at about 8 o’clock in the evening. Mr. Enue was then sent for to 
see which boxes we should put the papers in, whether in one box or in 
different boxes, and he told us it didn’t make any difference which box we 
put them in, so that we got them in. We then proceeded to count the 
Marshal’s ticket, and that was finished between 12 and 1 o’clock, very 
nigh 1. When that was done we put all the papers in the boxes, signed 
our names to the returns and put them in the box. I put them in myself. 
I put in a tally list and all the necessary papers that go inside, besides the 
assessor’s book and the list of voters. Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Wurteim 
sealed them up. Then Mr. McFall was asleep down stairs, and we called 
him and took them over to Alderman Fletcher’s house.” 

Judge King. —“ Then McFall took no part in the counting ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. He was asleep and we roused him up, that was 
a little after 1 o’clock, after we were done. We called down stairs to him 


113 


and he came up. He had the key of the door and we wanted to get out. 
We brought them over to Alderman Fletcher’s and left them there and 
then I went home.” 

Question .—“ From the time the election closed till you called Mr. 
Me Fall, at about one o’clock of the night referred to, who was in the room 
where the ballot boxes were?” 

Ansvier. — ££ No person but Mr. Enue. He came in there. He didn’t 
touch the tickets. He staid in there about five minutes. 

Question .— ££ At what time did McFall go to sleep?” 

Answer .— ££ I can’t say. In the early part of the evening he was up 
and down stairs. I don’t know what time he went to sleep, for I was not 
down stairs. It was about ten or eleven o’clock that I saw him—some- 
wheres about there.” 

Question .— <£ At what time were the County officers finished ?” 

Answer. — ££ I think about four o’clock in the afternoon of the day after 
the election.” 

Question . ££ Up to that time, had McFall or any other officer of the 

election been asleep 1” 

Answer .— ££ No, sir, not that I saw. Wurteim was sick. I don’t know 
whether he was asleep or not.” 

Question .— ££ Was any of the officers particularly careful about counting 
off?” 

Answer. — ££ Yes, sir—the Judge, Donnelly. We staid up stairs to watch 
the boxes when he went down to his breakfast. We told him to go down 
and get his breakfast, and when he came up, he said he had his breakfast.” 

Question .— ££ Do you recollect any of the voters towards the end of 
that list ?” 

Answer. — ££ Yes, sir.” 

Question. — ££ Take any name nearest the last that you recollect, and 
state the circumstances about his voting. Who was at the window when 
the polls closed inside?” 

Answer. — £< The last votes were taken in by Megarey. I had stepped 
out, and came in a few minutes before the polls closed—some five minutes. 

Megarey was then taking the votes, and a man by the name of Samuel 
Mulligrew voted.” 

Mr. Hirst. — £< His number is 1222.” 

Witness. — ££ A man by the name of Mooney brought him there to vote. 
I knew Mulligrew, and was talking to him before the election. He was 
not on the Assessor’s list, and there was a man who vouched for his resi¬ 
dence. I think it was Mooney who vouched for him. I will not be 
positive.” 

Question. — ££ Do you recollect a man named Vertine voting, and what 
took place ?” 

Answer. — <£ There was a man by that name voted, and he was the same 
15 


114 


name as one of the clerks inside, and the clerk said he was no relation to 
him or something to that effect.” [No. 1090.] 

Question. —“ At what time was that vote polled ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t know exactly what time it was; it was in the 
evening sometime. I am not sure what time. I know George Brown that 
voted. He voted just before I went out. I went out, I think, about ten 
minutes before ten o’clock.” [No. 1215.] 

Question .—“ Did Mr. Reed send for you just before the last election'?” 

Answer .—“ John McClain, in Second street, said that Mr. Reed wanted 
to see me.” 

Objected to by Mr. Campbell, and withdrawn for the present. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell. — Question. “ Have you ever been 
an officer of an election before ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir, an Inspector at the last election before this in 
October. I was in the house as an Inspector in October, 1849, and dis¬ 
charged my duties as such, then, in Second Ward, Moyamensing. Mr. 
Pole was the other Inspector. Benjamin M. Evans was Judge of the elec¬ 
tion. Albert B. Ashton was my clerk, and a man by the name of Kilpatrick 
was the other clerk.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ They were divided in politics then ?” 

Answer .—“I don’t know.” 

Question.— u Don’t you know whether a gentleman in with you in ’49 
differed with you in politics ?” 

Answer .—“ Pole is either a Whig or a Native.” 

Question. —“ At the last election were you all of one mind on these 
subjects ?” 

Answer. “We were all there to do our duty.” 

Question. “ In the election of 1850 were all the gentlemen in there 
of one opinion on political subjects'?” 

Question objected to by Mr. Hirst , but objection subsequently with¬ 
drawn. 

Witness. —“ I believe they were.” 

Question. —“ What did you do with your books and papers in ’49, after 
the election closed ?” 

Answer.—“ I put them in the boxes. I didn’t put them in, but I was 
there when it was done.” 

Question. —“ If you knew that was your duty in ’49, how came you 
to send in ’50 for a man to tell you it was ?” 

Answer. —“In ’49 there was a man in there, better acquainted than 
I was. Some were to be taken out and returned to the Prothonotary’s 
office. I didn’t know which of them.” 

Question. —“ In ’49 you didn’t know what papers were put in the 
boxes and what left out ?” 

Answer. —“ I did know some of them.” 


ii5 

Mr. Campbell. “ Was I right when I understood you to say that you 
wanted to know in what boxes to put the papers ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. We sent for Mr. Enue to show in what boxes to 
put them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —‘‘There was no difficulty about which papers but which 
boxes'?” 

Answer. —“There was papers to go in, but we didn’t know in what 
boxes to put them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“You sent for Mr. Enue?” 

Answer. —“I didn’t send for him. I don’t know who sent for him.” 

Question. —“ When he came, what did you ask?” 

Answer. —“Some one asked if it would make any difference whether 
they put the papers all in one or different boxes. That is all that was 
asked him that I heard. He said we could put them in any box we chose.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Mr. Enue gave no information as to which paper 
was to go in a box and which stay out?” 

Answer. —“ He didn’t tell me, nor converse on that subject in my pre¬ 
sence. I was there all the time he was there. I didn’t hear him say any¬ 
thing in reference to discriminating between the papers. We sent for him 
to see if we should put them in one or different boxes. I don’t remember 
in which boxes they were put at the previous election.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Take this list of voters and tell me in whose hand¬ 
writing it is from 1 to 84*?” 

Answer. —“It is Wurteim’s. From 84 to 111 is John Megarey’s, I 
think. From 111 to 204 is Wurteim’s again. From 204 to 235,1 think, 
is my hand-writing.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Have you any doubt about it ?” 

Answer. —No, sir—not without somebody could counterfeit pretty well. 
From 235 to 290,1 think, is Wurteim’s writing. .What I told you was 
mine is mine. I think from 235 to 290 is Wurteim’s. I can’t say for 
certain. I don’t know McFall’s writing. From 292 to 302 is John Me¬ 
garey’s. From 302 to 342,1 think, is Wurteim’s; I am not positive of it. 
From 344 to 447 is Megarey’s, I think, except a couple of names, which 
don’t look like the same hand-writing. From 343 to 431 is Megarey’s. 
From 431 to 439, I think, is Wurteim’s. From 439 to 447 is Megarey’s. 
From 447 to 470,1 think, is Wurteim’s; I am not positive of it. From 
470 to 661 is Megarey’s. From 661 to 665,1 think, is Wurteim’s. From 
665 to 750 is Megarey’s. From 750 to 760, I think, is Wurteim’s. From 
761 to 1075 is Megarey’s. From 1075 to 1176 is Megarey’s. From 1176 
to 1187, I think, is Wurteim’s. From 1187 to 1223 looks like Hayburn’s 
writing.” 

Question. —“ Have you not made a mistake all through, after 202, in 
putting as Wurteim’s what is Hayburn’s, from 303 to 343?” 

Answer. —“I thought it was Wurteim’s, and I am still of that opinion. 
From 750 to 760 I think is Wurteim’s. 

Mr. Campbell. —“ There is no correction you want to make about that V 9 

Answer. —“ I still think it is Wurteim’s hand-writing.” 


116 


Mr. Campbell. —“ Then from 1187 to 1223 is the only part that is 
Hayburn’s ?” 

Answer. —“ It looks like Hayburn’s writing.” 

Question .—“ At what time did you open the polls V 9 

Answer. —“ Between eight and nine o’clock. I was at the window, and 
took the first vote that came in. It was of Benj. M. Evans. I recollect 
that distinctly. I remember him telling us that was the first vote, and he 
was sorry he was not inside with us. He was in the year before.” 

Question .—“ Who kept the two window lists when you started the list 
of voters V 9 

Answer. —“ Wurteim and Hay burn, I think, commenced them.” 

Question. —“ Did you write any that day on the list of voters ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir, some few names. I can’t say at what time of day. 
I wrote very few, for I took most all the votes in at the window. I wrote 
on Wurteim’s list. From 205 to 235 is mine.” 

Question. — u Will you look over those names and tell me any of the 
gentlemen that you know, that are there in your hand-writing ?” 

Answer. —“ James Timmons. I don’t know any other names. I might 
know other faces.” 

Question. —“ Tell me if any name in that gap, from 204 to 234, was 
on the assessment list?” 

Answer. —“ If they were not, they would have had to be vouched be¬ 
fore they could vote. I didn’t look at the assessor’s list when a man came 
to vote. There were challengers outside. I don’t remember whether 
these were on the assessor’s list or not j I didn’t look at it.” 

Question .—“ Do you know Abel Lukens V 9 

Answer .—“ No, sir, not by name.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You went on taking the votes then till No. 204, 
then you took whose place at the window list ?” 

Answer. —“ Wurteim’s.” 

Question. —“ Who took your place when you left that seat ?” 

Anwser. —“ Megary, I think.” 

Question. —“ Who received the tickets of those who voted between 
204 and 234?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t remember what time of day it was.” 

Question. — " Did you receive them ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. If I was writing the names, I could not have 
received them—it must have been Megarey who took my place at the 
window.” 

Question.—" When you went back to the window, Megarey took your 
place ?” 

Answer.—" I don’t know whether Megarey took my place—it might 
have been Wurteim. When I was done writing I did’nt <r 0 out. I did’nt 
write any on Hayburn’s list that I know of. I don’t remember of any- 


117 


body taking his place. They might while I was busy taking votes—some¬ 
body might have taken his place. When they handed in their votes, I 
called their names out and laid the votes on the different boxes, and when 
they got the names written down I shoved them into the boxes.” 

Question. —“ Was there a table against the window V 9 

Answer. — C£ Yes, close up to the window. I sat before the table. The 
clerks were sitting at the end of the table.” 

Question. —“ At what time during the day were you absent from the 
window besides this once V 9 

Answer. —“ Sometime during the afternoon. I went out and got a 
little lunch up stairs in the second story room. It was sometime after 
twelve o’clock. I think it was before dark. I cannot give any nearer 
than between twelve and dark. The room I went into was the same that 
we afterwards took the boxes to. I believe they had a lunch up there 
all day. I don’t know who it was for. I did’nt ask the landlord who he 
put the lunch there for. I believe there was a lunch up there all day— 
nobody went up with me.” 

Question. —“ Did any other of the officers go up there during the day V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t know whether they did or not. I did’nt see any of 
them up there. There was two or three men up there. I don’t know 
who they were, it is not very likely that I should know every man about 
the place that day ; they didn’t go up with me. I don’t know any of the 
men I met up there. I was not up there more than three or four minutes.” 

Question. —“ How often were you absent from the window V 9 

Answer. “ I don’t think I was absent any more that day. Between 
nine and ten o’clock, the voting was so fast that I was tired of sittingthere 
steady, and I got up. It was between nine and ten o’clock. I can’t say 
which it was nearest. I came to the window after that, and stood along 
side, but did’nt take any votes. John Megary took the last votes that came 
in. I don’t know whether Wurteim was writing or not. I just went out 
of the door.” 

Question. —“ How long before the polls closed did you leave the 
window V 9 

Answer .—“ It was not very long. It was not half an hour ; it might 
have been about fifteen minutes.” 

Mr. Campbell. — iC Then you were at the window except from 204 to 
234, and five minutes between twelve o’clock and dark when you went up 
to your lunch, and about a half hour before ten o’clock V 9 

Answer. —“ I won’t say I was taking the votes in. I was in the room 
all the time. I might have stood up one side for a few minutes. I only 
wrote the once. Between quarter before ten and ten o’clock. Mr. Megary 
was taking the votes. The last part of this list looks like Hayburn’s 
writing.” 

Question. —“ Who was keeping the other window list then—the Judge 
could not read or write V 9 

Answer. —“ It must have been either Hayburn or Wurteim.” 

Question. —“ But Hayburn was keeping this one V 9 

Answer .—“ I think he was; this writing looks like his.” 


118 


Question .—“If Hayburn was writing at this, who was writing at the 
other ?” 

Answer. —“ Hayburn might have handed his list over to Wurteim to 
see whether they could correct the numbers.” 

Question .—“ If this is Hayburn’s handwriting, who was keeping the 
other window list.” 

Answer .—“ Wurteim might have had it.” 

Question. —“If he hadn’t it, who had?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know. One or the other must have had it.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ You mentioned that between 200 and 234? is the 
name of Mr. Timmins ; where does he reside?” 

[Objected to by Mr. Hirst.] 

Mr. Hirst. —“I ask Mr. Campbell to state what object he has in view. 
If my friend says he does it to test the credibility of the witness, I don’t 
object to it.” 

Judge King.—“I suppose the object is to try to find the man, and see 
whether he ever did give his vote.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ That is it.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ This should have been in chief, and not in cross-exami¬ 
nation.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I find between 204? and 234 are a clump of names, 
no one of which is on the assessment list. The witness has named one 
individual whom he knows. I claim the leave to inquire where he is and 
who he is. I desire to test this gentleman’s accuracy.” 

Judge King.— “ I think it is competent.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Favor me with Timmins’ residence ?” 

Answer. —“ He did live at the time of the election in Shippen street ? 
between Seventh and Eighth, on the south side. It is nearer to Eighth 
than to Seventh. I guess he kept the house himself. I can’t say whether 
he is a married man or not. He drove dray at the time.” 

Question. —“ Do you know Thomas Timmins ?’ 

Answer .—“ I do.” 

Question .—“ Where did he live ?” 

Answer. —“ He did live in Eighth street, near Carpenter. I don’t 
know where he lives now, nor whether he lived there at the time of the 
election.” 

Question .—“Do you know where James Timmins is now ?” 

Answer .—“ I have not seen him about there lately. I saw him about 
two months ago at the corner of Eighth and Shippen. I think he does 
not drive for himself but for somebody else.” 

Question. —“ Was McFall’s book written or printed ?” 

Answer. —“ I think it was written.” 

Question .—“ Were any names written in that book while you were in 
the room ?” 

Answer. —“ Not that I know of.” 


119 


Question. —“ When a man voted who was not assessed, was his name 
written down in Me Fall’s book'?” 

Answer .—“I don’t know whether it was or not. I didn’t see McFall 
do it. I didn’t hold that book during the day.” 

Question. —“ Who kept that book during the day?” 

Answer .—“ McFall I suppose. I did’nt pay any attention to that book. 
There was an Assessor’s list out on each side of the window.” 

Question. —“ Then you relied upon the gentlemen outside to make ob¬ 
jection to voters ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir, they generally challenged them.” 

Question. —“Then the Assessor’s book inside was hot used at all ?” 

Answer .—“Yes, sir, it was. I often heard McFall say that such a man 
was not on the Assessor’s book.” 

Question. —“Did you hear him mention any man that was on the Asses¬ 
sor’s book ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir. If a man’s name was on the Assessor’s book, and 
we knew he resided in the Ward, we took his vote.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ When his name was on the Assessor’s book, and you 
did’nt know he resided in the Ward ?” 

Answer. —“ Generally if there was a man who did’nt live in the Ward 
somebody outside would challenge him.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Suppose a man came whose name was not on the 
Assessor’s book?” 

Answer. —“ We would look through the Assessment book, and we would 
take his vote if his name was there, if it was not there, he would have to 
bring somebody to vouch for his residence.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Tell me the name of any gentleman who vouched for 
any of the voters between 204 and 234 ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know any. They were vouched for. I think each 
one was vouched for.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Every man that day, who was not upon the asses¬ 
sor’s list, was vouched for before he voted ?” 

Answer. —“ We either knew him to live in the ward, or he had to get 
a voucher. I was at the window and knew that.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Give me the name of any gentleman who was a 
voucher for any voter between 7 and 10 o’clock at night ?” 

Answer. —“ I saw Fagan vouch for some ; sometime in the evening ; 

Question. —“ Can you give the name of any person who vouched be¬ 
tween 204 and 234?” 

Answer .—“I don’t remember any.” 

Question. —“ For whom did Fagan vouch ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t remember that; nor for how many. It was W. 
H. Fagan. He might have vouched for one or so. I don’t remember 
more.” 


120 


Question .—“ Give me the name of any one else who vouched between 
7 and 10 o’clock 1 ?” 

Answer .—“1 don’t remember any. I don’t remember anybody but 
Fagan. When a man was called to vouch he was sworn and proved the 
residence. The men outside would challenge a voter, and he would bring 
up a voucher, and then we would take his vote. I would examine him 
myself. I administered the oath, and was face to face with fhe men who 
vouched.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Give us the name of any one beside Fagan who 
vouched beteen 7 and 10 o’clock?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t remember anybody else. Others were vouched 
for. I can’t say how many.” 

Question .—“ Were 100 men vouched for ?” 

Answer .—“ I can’t say.” 

Question .—“ Did you administer an oath to 100 men between 7 and 10 
o’clock.” 

Answer .—“ I think I did. I would not say positive to one hundred ; it 
was something less than a hundred. I administered a good many oaths.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ There were less than 100 men to whom you admin¬ 
istered the oath that night, between 7 and 10 o’clock ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Every man that was not in the assessment list you 
administered an oath for ?” 

Answer .—“ If I knew they lived in the ward, I would not swear them.” 

Question .—“ How many oaths did you administer during the whole 
day ?” 

Answer. “ I don’t remember. I didn’t keep an account. I don’t re¬ 
member how many I gave.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ When a man was vouched for then, nothing was writ¬ 
ten on the assessment list ?” 

Answer .—“They might have set it down. I don’t know.” 

Question .—“ Didn’t you say there was no writing on that book ?” 

Answer .—“ Not that I saw. McFall might have written on it, but I 
didn’t see him.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“These votes came in very fast between 7 and 10?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“ How many votes did you take in the last hour, while you 
were there between 9 and quarter of 10 ?” 

Answer .—“ I can’t answer that. I don’t know how many.” 

Quesiion .—“ Did they come in so fast that the clerks could not get 
their names right ?” 

O 

Answer .—“ When a vote came in I called the name out and it was 
written down.” 


121 


Question .—“Were votes taken so fast that they could not write the 
names down ?” 

Answer .—“ They would have to write the names down, of course.” 

Question. —“Then they did write down their names'?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“ When the election closed that night, who shut the win¬ 
dows'?” ' 

Answer .—“ John Megarey.” 

Question. —“ Who was the last man whose vote you saw received ?” 

Answer. —“Samuel Mulligrew. He did live at the time of the election 
in Seventh, between Shippen and Fitzwater. I don’t know the number 
of the house. It is between Baker and Shippen, on the west side of the 
way. He boarded there; he was a weaver.” 

Question. —“ When did you last see him?” 

Answer .—“ I saw him about two weeks after the election, but have not 
seen him since.” 

Question. —“ Was he a man with a family ?” 

Answer. —“ Not that I know of. I just knew him, to speak to him. I 
went to him, and told him to come and vote, the day before the election, 
and he said he would. I don’t know who he worked for, or whether he 
worked for himself, or anything else about his business.” 

Question .—“And he was vouched for by whom 1 ?” 

Answer. —“I don’t know who vouched for him, but I know that he 
resided in the ward. I don’t know whether he was vouched for or not. 
Megarey was taking the votes then. I was close by him, by the window.” 

Question. —“ Give me a statement of the time when the mistake was 
discovered in Wurteim’s list'?” 

Answer. —“There was one mistake made in the morning, and another 
in the evening. In the morning he skipped a couple of pages in turning 
over.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ The papers were then fastened together ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ That is certain ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir—they were tied together at the top and turned 
over leaf after leaf. He turned over two leaves. When he found out 
the mistake he had to go to work and fill them up.” 

Question. —“ Point out which these two leaves were'?” 

Answer. —“I can’t tell you that. It was in the morning sometime. I 
don’t know who discovered the mistake—I did’nt.” 

Question. —“ Was it discovered while Wurteim was writing or when 
somebody went to take his place'?” 

Answer. —“ I think it was while Wurteim was writing.” 

Question .—“Did he quit when the mistake was discovered?” 

16 


122 


•Answer .—“ I don’t know whether he quit, or wrote on. All they said 
was, that after they filled that leaf out as the votes came in, they would 
put them down on the leaves that were missed.” 

Question .—“Had that happened before you wrote'?” 

Answer .—“I think it had, but I am not certain.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ The best of your knowledge is that it was 1 ?” 

Answer .—“It might have been and it might not. I thought so and I 
still think so. It might have been before and it might have been after.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Didn’t you tell us it was before ?” 

Answer .—“ I thought so.” 

Question .—“ Do you think so now ?” 

Answer .—“ It may have been before and it may have been after.” 

Question .—“ Can you give the name of any gentleman whose vote was 
put on one of the vacant leaves ?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir. I can’t tell what numbers were on those vacant 
leaves.” 

Question .—“ Were these names you wrote put upon the vacant leaves V* 

Answer .—“ Not that I know of. I don’t remember.” 

Question .—“ Who did write in the two vacant leaves?” 

Answer .—“ That I don’t know.” 

Question .—“ Were the numbers on the vacant leaves?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t say they were. I don’t know whether the leaves 
were numbered or not.” 

Question. “ What is the best of your belief?” 

Answer .—“ I think they were wrote and they had to alter them. I 
think they were altered.” 

Question .—“ How were they altered ?” 

Answer .—-“ They had to make them correspond to make the numbers 
come out even. If we skipped a leaf the other list would not be skipped, 
and they had to make them come out even.” 

Mr. Campbell. “ The mistake was that he carried the right number 
over to the wrong page?” 

Answer .—I think he did.” 

Question .—“ Are you not mistaken about that ?” 

Answer .—“ I think he carried them over. I was not keeping the list 
then.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“He came down, for instance, to 141. He skipped 
over two pages, and began 142 over here. Is that the way you mean ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell. ■“ How can that be possible if they were numbered 
already in the margin ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t know that they were.” 


123 


Mr. Campbell .—“ They were not numbered before taken in V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t know.” 

Question. —“ Why could not the vacant leaves be torn out V 9 

Answer .—“ I don’t know. It was the clerks that were at it. It was 
not me.” 

Question. —“How did they get the numbers regular at last 1 ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know how they got that fixed. They had to fix 
them and make them come out even. I can’t tell how that mistake was 
rectified.” 

Question .—“Do you know any man whose name was put on the vacant 
leaves 1” 

Answer. —“No, sir. I don’t remember any. I might know them.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ He left two leaves in between, on which nothing 
was written; how did they ever get the numbers right on these two leaves % 
Say here was 142, and then 141 two leaves before, how were they got 
right ?” 

Answer. —“ I didn’t keep this list, and I can’t explain it to you.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ As to this mistake in the afternoon, what was that V 9 

Answer .—“ They made a mistake in the numbers, I believe. I think 
it was a little before dark.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ They were not so hurried then, that they could not 
take the number, how did it occur 1” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know. I believe they skipped another leaf over 
there. I don’t know who did it. I was taking in the votes. I didn’t 
take notice who was writing.” 

Question. —“ How did you know they skipped another leaf in the after¬ 
noon 1” 

Answer. —“ I heard them say there was a mistake made ; it was either 
Megary or Wurteim.” 

Question. —“ Can you point out where that other leaf was skipped V y 

Answer .—“ No, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ It was another blank leaf turned over V 9 

Answer. —“ I believe it was; or they made a mistake in the numbers 
or something or other; I don’t know whether it was a leaf turned over.” 

Question. —“ How could there be a mistake in the numbers V 9 

Answer. —“ When they numbered them they might make a mistake, 
and put down another number. I don’t know which it was. That was 
in the afternoon.” 

Question. —“ What did they do with that mistake of the numbers ?” 

Answer. —“ They rectified it, I believe. I don’t know how they fixed 
it. I did’nt do it. One of the clerks rectified it ; either Wurteim or 
Hayburn.” 


124 


Question. —“ What was the last hour of the day that Wurteim wrote a 
line on the window list ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t remember. He was sick in the afternoon.” 

Question. —“ Was he sick in the morning ?” 

Answer. —“I believe he was.” 

Question. —“ Did he write in the afternoon ?” 

Answer. —“ I believe he did.” 

Question. —■“ When the polls closed, who was at the window ?” 

Answer .—“ John Megary closed them.” 

Question. —“ Who was at the window, outside ?” 

Answer. —“ I could not tell who was, there was so many out there. I 
dont remember now one man that was on the outside.” 

Question .—“ When you closed the polls, what was the first thing you 
did?” 

Answer. —“ First, they compared the two lists, and they had to fix 
them up to get them even.” 

Question. —“They didn’t compare them before?” 

Answer .—“ There might have been some slight mistakes.” 

Question .—“ After the polls closed, Mr. Hayburn and who else did this 
duty ?” 

Answer .—“ Mr. Hayburn had one list and Mr. Megarey, I think, had 
the other. They sat down to the table. I paid attention to what was 
going on then. I think they read the whole list over.” 

Mr. Tyler. —“We have found the names of Jos. Harris and Robert M. 
Murray on the assessment list.” 

Mr. Campbell , to the Witness .—“ Did they read over the lists ?” 

Answer. —“ I think they did. I would not be certain whether they 
read over every name. I think Hayburn read some of them.” 

Question .—“ Who read the rest?” 

Answer. —“ Either Megarey or Wurteim.” 

Question. —“ Had the numbers by the side of the names been made be¬ 
fore that ?” 

Answer. —“ They had. I think they mentioned having omitted some.” 

Question .—“ To the best of your belief, the numbers were all com¬ 
pleted on the lists before then ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“ What was the difficulty in making the numbers corres¬ 
pond ?” 

Answer.— u Some might have had different numbers opposite the names, 
and made the mistake in that way.” 

Question. —“ Did they agree in the number of voters at the end ?” 

Answer. —“I believe they did.” 


125 


Question .—“ The only thing to be corrected was the numbering on the 
left hand side 1” 

Answer. —“ Each of them had the names on the list, but I don’t think 
they were numbered out right. The names on one list corresponded with 
the names on the other. I don’t think they came in regular order and 
corresponded. The names didn’t come in regularly on both lists.” 

Question .—“ Did the sum total of the names correspond 1” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Did they add them up; the number of voters 1” 

Answer .—“ No, sir; they could read off the names ; we didn’t add them 
up.” 

Judge King.—“ The election closed, the boxes were shut up, and you 
commenced at what, and for what; tell what you know of it 1” 

Witness .—“ They commenced to make both the window lists come out 
even.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Then you must have looked and seen they didn’t 
come out even 

Answer. —“ I didn’t look. The clerks disagreed between them.” 

Question. —“ Then there was a difference in the number of them ; was 
there 1” 

Answer. —“The numbers on the sides; but they both had the same 
names on the list.” 

Question. —“ At the bottom of each list was there No. 12231” 

Answer .—“ I don’t know whether there was or not; but they had the 
same number of names on each list.” 

Question. —“ There was a difference in the numbers on the sides 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Then they were numbered at the sides when you went 
to the table V 9 

Answer. —“I think they were numbered down. I am not positive of 
it. I had’nt the book.” 

Question .—“ If they were numbered down at the side, what was the 
difference 1” 

Answer. —“ They differed in them somehow. I think the clerks can 
tell that better than I can.” 

Question. —“How long did that take ?” 

Answer. —“ It took an hour or so, I guess; I don’t know the correct 
time. They read over some of the names of voters. I don’t know 
whether they read all or not.” 

Question .—“All they did to these lists was to alter them in the margin , 
to make the numbers correspond V 9 

Answer. —“I believe so.” 


126 


Question. —“ Do you mean they put the same number opposite to each 
man’s name in each list ? 

Answer .— ££ I think they did.” 

Question .—“ How can that be so, consistently, with what you have told 
me in reference to writing in two sheets of names after the numbers had 
gone on ?” 

Answer. — ££ They might have missed the leaves, and on the other list 
they did’nt correspond. They might have put the same number opposite 
the same man’s name on each list. I think they did. I don’t know how 
they made them correspond—the clerks can tell how they did it. I did’nt 
pay attention to that.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“It took about two hours to put this list in order?” 

Answer. —“ It took an hour or two, I guess.” 

Mr. Campbell. — ££ Then you went on to count the votes on the Amend¬ 
ment; about how many were ca!>t for the Amendment ?” 

Answer. — ££ I think there was a small vote cast for the Amendment.” 

Question. — ££ How long did it take you to count them ?” 

Answer. — ;<£ It took us, it may be, two or three hours.” 

Question. — £< What were you at, to take three hours to count this vote?’ 

Answer. — ££ Some of them opened them and counted them by tens.” 

Mr. Campbell. — ££ There were 449 votes cast on that subject; did it 
take you three hours to count them ?” 

Answer. — ££ After they were opened, when we got the tally lists, we 
had to fill them up. The clerks filled it up, I believe. I don’t know 
which clerk did that. It might have been Megarey. I didn’t do it.” 

Mr. Campbell .— ££ It was in consequence of that and counting the 
votes, that took you the three hours ?” 

Anwer. — ££ Yes, sir, We didn’t hurry right fast, and didn’t go into it 
right hard. After that was done we went up stairs. It was about day¬ 
light.” 

Question .— ££ When you got up stairs, was that the first time you had 
been up there that day, except when you went for lunch?” 

Answer. — ££ Yes, sir.” 

Question. — ££ In whose handwriting is the heading of the tally list for 
the Amendment, is it not Mr. Enue’s ? [ Tally lists shown him.] 

Answer. — ££ No, sir. The heading looks like Megarey’s hand.” 

Question. — ££ Is that Megarey’s hand-writing ?” 

Answer. — ££ I can’t say, indeed. It looks a little like it though—it is 
so large.” 

Question. — ££ Is the three hundred and twenty-five in the same hand¬ 
writing ?” 

Answer. — ££ I don’t think it is.” 

Question. — ££ Is it not Megarey’s ?” 

Answer.—' “ No, sir. It looks like mine, and I think it is mine.” 


127 


Mr. Campbell. —“ Are you still of opinion that you were delayed in 
counting off the Amendment ticket, in consequence of one of the clerks 
having to write this V ’ 

Answer .—■“ That was not all; we had more papers there.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You wrote all your papers down stairs ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, we filled a good many up down there.” 

Question. —“ What did you write down stairs V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t remember what ones they were, but we filled up a 
good many papers down there 1” 

Question. —“ Did you fill up tally lists down there ?” 

Answer. U I don’t remember. I did not. I don’t think anybody else 
did.” 

Question. —“ What did you go at first when you went up stairs V 9 

Answer. —“ We went to sorting the commissioners’ ticket. We all 
helped to sort. Wurteim, I believe, helped too.” 

Question —“ When you had them sorted, did you read them out loud”’ 

Answer .—“ First we sorted them, and then we went down and got our 
breakfast and left Donnelly up stairs. Megarey, Wurteim, Hayburn and 
myself went down to breakfast, and then we all came up and told Don¬ 
nelly to go down to his breakfast, and he went down.” 

Mr. Campbell. — u You first sorted the commissioners’ ticket, and they 
laid open on the table V 9 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir. The other boxes were there in that room at that 
time. Donnelly went down for his breakfast and we waited for him.” 

Question .—“ What did you do ?” 

Answer. —“ We sat there and smoked a cigar, and waited till he came 
up. We didn’t read the papers, it was too soon. I don’t think it was as 
late as 9 o’clock when I got my breakfast.” 

Question. —“ Didn’t you say you went down about 9 o’clock to get 
breakfast ?” 

Answer. — “I don’t think it was quite nine. It was sometime in the 
morning. We didn’t see any newspapers. We didn’t do anything while 
Donnelly was down at his breakfast but smoke a segar. I don’t know 
what we were talking about. We might have spoken about the election, 
but I don’t remember. When Donnelly came up, we went to work count¬ 
ing the Commissioners’ ticket. We had them all sorted out before we 
went down. We hadn’t all the scratched tickets sorted out. When he 
came back, we went to work immediately. We read over every ticket. 
I don’t remember who read them. Every one was read. We saw it was 
a full ticket, and put them in piles of ten. We cast our eye over it.” 

Question. —“ Did you read it, or just cast your eye over it to see that 
it was a full ticket ?” 

Answer. —“ I think they were read one by one.” 

Question. — u Where did you write your tally list for the Amendment V 9 

Answer. —“ Down stairs it was filled up. I don’t remember if it wae 


128 


signed down there. We signed all the papers at once, at the end of our 
work. They might have signed some of them. I think the Commis¬ 
sioners’ ticket was signed after some of the other tickets were counted off. 

Question .—“ You then went to ‘County Officers V ” 

Answer. —Yes, sir; and pursued the same course with them as with 
the Commissioners. We read over every ticket. I don’t remember 
which read the tickets over. After we read them, we put them in piles 
of tens. I believe we read every ticket over.” 

Three o’clock having arrived, the Court adjourned to meet to-morrow 
morning, at 10 A. M. 




Wednesday, February 26,1851.—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

Wm. McMullen , re-called. — Cross-examination continued. — Question . 
—“ Have you since the election seen the list of voters after 907 V 9 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. I saw a copy of them about two or three weeks 
ago.” 

Question. —“ Have you made exertion to find any of these gentlemen]’? 

Answer. —“ I saw on the list a man’s residence that I knew, and I went 
to see if I could see him. His name was on this list, and 1 took the As¬ 
sessor’s list, and looked on it, and found out where he lived, and went to 
see him.” 

Question. —“ How many others did you look for ?” 

Answer. —“For some few more, but 1 did’nt pay attention to them, only 
hunting them. I took the list in my hands, and looked at it, to see if I 
knew any of the names on it, and then I took the Assessor’s list and com¬ 
pared them. I saw a great many on that list that were on the Assessor’s 
list. I went to one man, and tried to see him, but he was not at home.” 

Question .—“Did you go to any other man]” m 

Answer. —“ I think I did. I did’nt go to more than three out of the 
whole of them.” 

Question. —“ Will you favor me with those three names ]” 

Answer. —“ That I don’t remember. I can tell you where they live? 
but I don’t remember their names ]” 

Question. —“ Where do they live ]” 

Answer. —“ In Milton street, between Tenth and Eleventh ; the three 
lived there. I cannot give the ^ame of any of the three.” 

Question. —“ Did you look any further than for three ]” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir ; I looked over the list.” 

Question. —“ Did you look through the ward]” 

Answer .—“ These are the only three I went and looked for. I went 
to look for them about ten days or two weeks ago.” 



129 


Mr. Campbell .—“ You knew their names when you went to look for 
. them ?” 

Answer. —“ I had them on a piece of paper. I took it off the list my¬ 
self.” 

Question. —“Did you see any one of them'?” 

Answer. —■“ No, sir, not one. They told me they had moved out of the 
ward since the election. The man at the house where they lived. I don’t 
know the man’s name. I don’t remember in what part of the list I found 
those three names.” 

Question. —“Were you more than one day looking for those three 
men'?” 

Answer. —“ It was not a whole day. I have never looked for any of 
the 300 since. A man by the name of Murphey was with me when I 
searched for these three, I believe he was up at Court here. I met him 
over there; he lives in that direction, and I asked him if he knew where 
such men lived, and he said he thought they lived in Milton street. He 
lives over there.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I thought you had got their residences from the As¬ 
sessor’s list. 

Witness. —“So I had, but I did’nt know but what there might be two 
of that name. I looked for nobody else since to my knowledge.” 

Question .—■“ Did you ever look for Mullegrew?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, not since the election.” 

Question.— u For Michael Mullegrew ?” 

Answer .—“ Not that I know of. I don’t recollect looking for him nor 
for Samuel Mullegrew. I did not look for Mr. Mooney, the gentleman 
who vouched for Mullegrew. I don’t know where he is. I saw him 
about a week ago, it may be less time. At the corner of Sixth and 
Chestnut. I don’t know where he lives now. His first name is George. 

I think he is a tailor by trade. I don’t know whether he works at it. At 
the time of the election he lived in Ninth, between Shippen and South. I 
did not go there to inquire where he was.” 

Question. —“ Where did you get the ticket you voted yourself?” 

Answer. —“ Somebody handed it into the window to me. I don’t re¬ 
member who it was now.” 

Question. —“ From whom did you procure the necessary papers on 
which your different returns were written ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t remember who they came from. They were at 
the polls in the morning when we went there. I don’t know who brought 
them.” 

Question.—“ Who took them to the Prothonotary’s office after the 
election ?” 

Answer. —“ I did. They were sealed up. I sealed them that morn- 
ino-. I brought them to the Prothonotary’s office on Thursday morning, 
about 12 o’clock. I think I sealed them that morning two or three hours 
before that.” 


17 


130 


Question .— <£ Where had they been from the time you took the boxes 
to Alderman Fletcher'?” 

Answer ,—“ I had them all the time.” 

Question. —“ Did .you leave them at McFall’s, when you took the 
boxes to Alderman Fletcher’s ?•” 

Answer .—“ No, sir. I carried them with me. I took them home 
with me, and brought them from home to the Prothonotary’s office. I 
sealed them at my own house. They were all tied up before that. I 
don’t remember that any person was present when I sealed them. IN one 
of the officers of the election were there. 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst .—“ You said you saw the papers put in the 
boxes and the bundles 1” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“ Were any left out, on the table or in the house 1” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ You were asked whether all the officers of the election 
in that house were favorable to Mr. Kneass, or were of one mode of think¬ 
ing on political subjects, you only know that from their declarations; have 
you any other means of knowledge V 3 

Answer .—“ No, sir.” 

Question .—“ What was the up stairs room used for during the day of 
the election V 3 

Answer .—“ I don’t know what it was used for. I went up there to get 
something to eat. There were two men in there at the time.” 

Question .— " Was it a room of general resort during the election day, 
for anybodv that chose to go into it V 3 

Answer .—“ I should think it was, there was a table set there.” 

Question .—“ Was it different from the room that is usually kept open 
on election days, at ward houses V 3 

Answer .—“ The same kind, sir. It is a room kept for meetings.” 

Question .—“ You said that Donnelly went down stairs, and when he 
came up said he had been to breakfast, how long was he away V 3 

Answer .—“He was not more than ten minutes, if that.” 

Question .—“ While he was down who were in the room ?” 

Answer .—“ The officers of the election were all there but him. Me- 
garey, Wurteim, Hayburn, McFall, I believe, were there, and myself.” 

Question .—“ Was McFall there V 3 

Answer .—“ I think he was up stairs after Donnelly went down, but I 
am sure the rest of the officers were all there.” 

Question .—“ While Donnelly was down stairs, was the ‘County Officers’ ’ 
box opened or touched V 3 

Answer .— tc No, sir.” 

Question .—“ In your presence or to your knowledge was that box inter- 


131 


fered with, from the time the voters’ ballots were placed in it till they 
were counted off?” J 

* 

Answer. “ They were not interfered with at all. The tickets were 
kept in that box safely, from the time they were polled till they were 
counted.” J 

Question. “ You have spoken of being away occasionally during the 
election; were you away at any time long enough for the clerks to have 
written 300 and odd names on the list of voters ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Cross-examined. — Question. —“ Did you put any of the papers into 
any of the boxes at all before Mr. Enue came ?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir.” 

Question .—“ Were they changed in their position in any of the boxes ?” 

Answer .—“ Not that I know of. I didn’t change them.” 

•Mr. Campbell .—“ The same boxes in which they were originally put 
were they left in ?” r ’ 

Answer. —“They might have been. I didn’t see them take them out 
to change them. I didn’t see any of the papers taken out.” 

Question. —“Do you know a man named P. McKeever?” [923.] 

Answer. —“ I knew a P. McKeever, who is dead. I never knew any 
other of that name. He died in Mexico. He was there with me.” 

Joseph A. Wurteim, sworn. — Question. —“ Were you a Clerk at the last 
general election, in Second Ward, Moyamensing ?” 

Answer. —“I was, sir. I was appointed by John Megary. Mr. Hay- 
burn was appointed by McMullen. The election opened between eight 
and nine o’clock, in the morning, and closed at ten o’clock.” 

Question. —“ What occasioned the delay in opening the election ?” 

Answer. —“ Waiting for the Alderman to come there and swear us. The 
officers were all then ready.” 

Question .—“ During the day who took the tickets from the voters ?” 

Answer .—“ Wm. McMullen and Mr. Megarey, but chiefly Mr. Mc¬ 
Mullen.” 

Question. —“ As the tickets were polled where were they placed ?” 

Answer. —“Deposited in the boxes. They were kept safely in the 
boxes till they were counted.” 

Question. —“ Who was in the room from the time the election opened 
till it closed at ten o’clock.” 

Answer. —“ There was Mr. McMullen,-” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ Except the officers.” 

Witness. —Mr. McFall, the Assessor of the Ward, and once or twice 
his bar-keeper came in as we wanted refreshments, and his hired girl passed 
through to the yard attending to her work.” 



132 


Mr. Hirst. —“ Except these, was any one else in the room during the 

day except the officers and McFall V 9 

♦ 

Answer .—“ No, sir, not that I seen.” 

Question. —“ During what part of the day was the greatest number of 
votes polled in proportion V 7 

Answer. — (( It£was after night; not the greater proportion, but the voting 
was stronger at night than during the day.” 

Question. —“ From what hours V 9 

Answer. —“From seven till ten, or perhaps from half past six. It 
was after nightfall. From that time till ten the voting was very constant. 
When the polls closed at ten o’clock, there was some 1220 votes polled, 
I think, or about that. The exact number I don’t recollect only from 
hearsay. It was 1222 or 3—I don’t know which—that is, from my own 
knowledge.” 

Question. —“ What do you mean by your only knowing it from hear- 
s ay ?” 

Answer. —“ It was 1222 or 3 j I don’t recollect which. From what 
was said inside, among ourselves, that I am positive of, it was 1222 or 
1223. I think it was rather 1223. I didn’t keep a copy of it, nor have 
I seen the list since then. I am positive it was over 1220.” 

Question .—“ Do you recollect what took place when a person named 
Wurteim voted'?” 

Answer. —“ There was no person named Wurteim voted, but a person 
named Vertine, and I said he is no relation of mine, for I have none. I 
recollect a laugh by the officers inside. That vote was polled late in the 
night. I think nigh the close of the election, to the best of my know¬ 
ledge.” 

Question. —“ What was the state of your health during the day V ’ 

Answer. —“ It was very bad. I had a bilious diarrhsea, which I am 
subject to, and have been for some years.” 

Question. —“ During what part of the day did that disable you ?” 

Answer. —“ I think it was near eleven o’clock in the morning that I 
was first attacked severely. I had felt it the day before. I ha°ve been 
subject to it ior the last ten years.” 

Question. —“How long did it remain on you on that occasion?” 

Answer. —“ It remained on me for at least three days, before I had got 
well of it, after the election. I had an attack of it when I was on the 
last jury in a murder case. Megarey, one of the Inspectors, kept my list 
for me chiefly on election day. I was in the room mostly, but I had to 
go out some ten or fifteen different times. Calls of nature made me leave 
the room.” 

Question. “ With these exceptions, were you in the room from the 
opening of the election till its close'?” 

Answer. “ I was, sir. One thing I wish to mention, that when I have 
these attacks, I am very nervous and have no command of myself. I can 
not write—it debilitates me.” 


133 


Question. — “ Who was in the room from the time the window was 
closed till you took the boxes to Aid. Fletcher’s'?” 

Answer .—“ Mr. Joseph Enue, and if I mistake not Mr. John Lochlin 
was with him for a few minutes. If my memory serves me right, I think 
that is correct. I am satisfied Mr. Enue was in the room.” 

Question. —“ With the exception of Mr. Enue and Mr. Lochlin, was 
any one else in the room but the officers'?” 

Answer. —“ John McFall.” 

Question. — <c How long was Mr, Enue there ?” 

Answer. —“I don’t suppose he was there more than five minutes, if he 
was there that long.” 

Question. —“ Did he touch the ballot boxes or the tickets'?” 

Answer. — <c He did not. He was sent for by the officers, to see in what 
boxes we should deposit the tally list and papers of the election. We 
were not certain if there was any particular boxes to put them in, and he 
was sent for to ask the question.” 

Question. —“ From the time the polls closed, till the boxes were sealed, 
were the names of any persons placed upon the tally list, except those 
who voted ?” 

Answer. —“ They were not, to my knowledge.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I mean on the list of voters.” 

Witness. —“ You mean the list of voters; no, sir, they were not.” 

Question. —Were you absent from the room long enough to permit 
300 names to be put there without your knowledge V 9 

Answer. — “ I was not, at no one time.” 

Question. —“ Explain what was done, from the time the election window 
closed, by the officers '?” 

Answer. —“ The first thing was to correct my list, as I had been unwell 
during the day, and others had to carry out the tallies for me. After the 
polls closed the lists were compared, mine was imperfect, Mr. Hayburn 
had kept a correct list, there were imperfections in mine, and it was cor- 
rected by his. After perfecting the list, making it correct with the other, 
there was no mistakes, only neglect in numbering, and a leaf or two that 
I had skipped when I was first taken sick, which they had to compare and 
put together.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Take that list of voters in your hand, and explain fully 
to the Court, what were the corrections you speak of ?” 

Answer. —“ At No. 9 J, at the end of the second page, was the first time 
I was taken sick ; then my writing commenced again at No. 112. I had 
been out of the room then but a very few minutes. At 189 is not my 
writing ; then I commenced again at 190, and there is where I skipped a 
leaf or two. 189 is not my writing, but 190 is. No. 203 is not mine, the 
intermediate ones are my hand-writing.. If you take notice of that instead 
of being 203 it is 102. That is my own mistake.” 

Question .—“ How much of this is your hand-writing after 202 V 9 


134 


Answer .—“ I don’t recognise any more of mine after that. I was in- 
capacitated to do it.” 

Question. —“You say the tally lists were compared; what were the 
corrections V 9 

Answer <—“ They were all my mistakes, in spelling some of the names 
wrong, and in numbering. We had to call some of the voters back to 
get their names. They would vote and run away, and we had to call 
them back, and had to ask some their first, and others their last names.” 

Question. —“Was anything else done to the list of voters except what 
you have stated V 9 

Answer. —“Not to my knowledge. The votes came in so fast from 
about eight o’clock to ten, that they hadn’t a chance to number them, and 
had to number them after the names were taken. I didn’t do it myself, 
but was sitting by and saw it done. After the polls closed, they corrected 
the lists and numbered them. The latter part of this list is in Hayburn’s 
hand-writing. I sat by him and told him to take the names, that I could 
not write. His writing, I think, is from about 1176 to 1223. I sat along¬ 
side of him while he was writing it. I was incapable of writing myself. 
He wrote these names down after the polls closed ; they were copied from 
his list; he kept his own list.” 

Question. —“Did they copy from Hayburn’s list to your’s, or from 
your’s to his V 9 

Answer. —“ He copied from his upon mine after the polls closed. He 
was keeping one list, and I was sitting by, not able to keep my own.” 

Question. —“ What else was done with reference to the list of voters, 
after the polls closed.” 

Answer. —“ Nothing done to the list of voters that I see.” 

Question. —“ What was done after these lists of voters were compared 
and corrected V 9 

Answer. —“ They counted off the tickets in the A mendment box, for or 
against the judges. When we got through that, and I think we were go¬ 
ing to commence on the Commisssioners’ ticket, and we wanted breakfast, 
and McFall said we would have to give him the room, so that the girl 
could cook our breakfast, and we would have to go into another room. 
We then went up stairs into the front room, second story; Mr. Donnelly and 
McMullen carrying the boxes before us, from the back kitchen to the front 
room, second story. If I am not mistaken, Donnelly had three, and McMul¬ 
len three boxes. We then commenced counting off the district ticket for 
commissioners. Before we got through that, McFall told us breakfast was 
ready. We started to go down to breakfast, and all went down but Don¬ 
nelly, who was the judge; he would not leave the boxes alone, but staid 
and watched them himself. I was the first one that got through break¬ 
fast, and I went up stairs and told Donnelly to go down to his breakfast 
and he went down before the others got through and left me in charge of 
the boxes, and I had charge of them while he was down, and before the 
others came up, so that no strangers had anything to do with them, with 
the exception of the officers of the election. We went on after that, and 
counted off the different tickets till dinner time, when we got our dinner, 
at least I did, I don’t know whether the rest did or not. I got mine some- 


135 


where about 2 or 3 o’clock. I went down stairs and got my dinner. We 
then went on counting off box after box. What kept us so long in count¬ 
ing off was that Donnelly, our judge, would sometimes go over the ticket s 
3, 4 or 5 times, to be sure he had no more than ten. I remarked to him 
several times, ‘why don’t you count faster, we will get through quicker,’ 
but he wanted to be certain he hadn’t more than ten in one bundle. We 
could have counted in three or four hours less time if it hadn’t been for 
him being so precise. Between 8 and 9 o’clock, Joseph Enue was sent 
for. There was a talk among the officers about into which box the pa¬ 
pers should go in; he was sent for and came into the room • that was 
before we were done counting off, and he was asked the question and said 
it made no difference which box they went into, except the commission¬ 
ers’ box, which wds local and they had no right to go into that, and if I 
am not mistaken, Mr. John Lochlin accompanied him. I can’t recollect 
which was the last ticket they counted off, whether it was the county offi¬ 
cers or not. It was before the last ticket that Mr. Enue came in. We 
had a talk among ourselves which was the proper box, while counting off. 
If I am not mistaken, I think the last ticket we counted off was State offi¬ 
cers. I am not certain of that, and don’t like to say whether that was or 
not.” i> 

Mr. Hirst. — c< You finished counting off; what next?” 

Answer. —“ Then Mr. McMullen put the papers in the box—all the 
papers appertaining to the election—there was the different tally lists, 
and one of the list of voters.” 

Question. —“ Whose list went in?” 

Answer .—“ Mr. Hayburn’s. Myself and Donnelly tied them up and 
sealed them. I am satisfied that the tally list went into one of the boxes. 
I may be mistaken. I mean a list of voters like that, in Hayburn’s hand¬ 
writing. I am almost certain of it. I think I sealed it up myself. A 
man can’t be certain of anything, you know.” 

Question .—“Are you as certain of that as you are of anything?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir. The boxes were sealed and taken to Aid. James 
Fletcher’s, and there left in his possession.” 

Question. — <£ Who twisted the tickets and put them in the boxes?” 

Answer. —“ Mr. Donnelly.” 

Question .—“ Does that apply to all the boxes ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir ; to all the five boxes. There was no tickets put 
in the boxes but what Donnelly twisted and put in himself.” 

Question. —“ As the tickets were twisted by Donnelly, what account 
was taken of them ?” 

Answer. —“ Myself and Hayburn tallied them by tens, as they were 
called off by Donnelly and the Inspectors. The two Inspectors and 
Judge repeated it one after the other, ten for so and so.” 

Mr. Hirst. —■“ I refer to the paper you marked ten; was that perfected 
for each box before you went on to count the next box ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir. Each box was perfected before we went on to 
count the others. They were not put in the box till after we got full 
counting.” 

Question. —“ Did you compare the two tally lists?” 


136 


Answer. —“ Yes, sir, and they were carried out to the margin of tne 
regular vote in writing. If I could see one of them I could tell you. 
[Tally list produced.] “ This is my tally list.” 

Question. —“The two Clerks compared the tallies, and counted up the 
tens ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir. This is not mine, it is Hayburn’s; mine was like 
this, and compared with the others. As the votes were called off by tens 
we put them down, and carried it out to the full amount to the end of the 
list. It was carried out and tallied at the margin.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ In the other tally lists here, W. R. Dickerson has 31 
votes, and in your tally you have carried him out 32.” 

Witness. —“ I might have made a mistake, we are all liable to mistakes 
in this world.” 

Question .—“ Was there a person named Mayland votedat that election'?” 

Answer .—“ There was, it was Jacob Mayland. I think he voted after 
dark ; it was pretty late at night. I think it must have been after nine 
o’clock. I saw him vote. I was sitting at the table at the time. I have 
known him for some fifteen years. He was one of those oyster boys that 
go about with an oyster cart here and there. I think he drove for Charles 
Clair.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ He is No. 1186 on the list.” 

Witness. —“ When I was connected with the Moyamensing police, I 
have arrested him many a time. He is one of those kind of men that 
when the weather is warm and good he is alway about, and ten chances 
to one, when it comes winter, if he is not in the alms-house or work-house. 
I have taken him to prison. He is an American born, and has as good a 
right to vote as any other man born in Philadelphia. We have a good 
many customers of that kind down in Moyamensing.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell. — Question .—“ Had you ever been 
clerk of an election before ?” 

Answer. —“ I had, some years before, in First Ward, Moyamensing— 
some eight or nine years ago—not since.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ I wan’t you to look at this list, and give me the 
hand-writing of every person on it—first look from 1 to 84 ?” 

Witness .—“ That is in my hand-writing. From 84 to 111 is Megarey’s. 

I have no doubt about it—not a bit. From 111 to 202 is all mine, with 
the exception of 189—that looks like Mr. Hayburn’s. From 202 to 234 
are my numbers, but not my hand-writing—it is Megary’s, I think.” 

Question .—“ Are you sure of that'?” 

Answer. —“ Certainly ; that is, he took my book to write on while I 
went out. There is no mistake about it, and he cannot be. I gave him 
my book, and when I came in he had it.” 

Question. —“ Have you any doubt that this is his hand-writing ?” 

Answer .—“ It looks like it.” 

Question .—“ Have you any doubt about it'?” 

Answer. —“ I have not. From 234 to 290 is Megarey’s.” 

Question .— “ From 290 to 302?” 


137 


Answer.—“ There are some few names there written by Wm. McMul¬ 
len. From 293 to 302 I think is in the hand-writing of McMullen.” 

Question .—“ Whose hand is it from 290 to 2931” 

■ j 

Answer .— u Megarey’s.” 

Question .—“ From 302 to 3421” 

Answer .—“ That is Megarey’s.” 

Question .—« From 342 to 4471” 

Answer .—“ 343 is in the same hand-writing as Megarey’s.” 

Question .—“ From 342 to 4471” 

Answer. — u It is Megarey’s.” 

Question. —« From 447 to 470 1” 

Answer .—“ I misunderstood you ; I thought you said to 347.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Well, from 342 to 447 1” 

Answer. —“ Some is Megarey’s and some McMullen’s.” 

Question .—“ State the numbers of McMullen’s 1” 

Answer. —“ Some of their hands are so much alike that I can’t tell, 
and several times I was not in the room for ten or fifteen minutes—it is 
hard for me to tell you—some is written loosely and some is written close 
so that I can’t tell. I cannot discriminate between the individuals between 
342 and 447. It is either Megarey’s or McMullen’s.” 

Question. —“ Can you give any one name written there by McMullen 1” 

Answer .— <c There are several here. I think 441, 439, and 438, are in 
McMullen’s hand-writing—all the rest on this sheet look like Megarey’s— 
460, 461, and 462 are in my hand-writing.” 

Question. —“ From 342 to 447, can you point out any other names in 
that of McMullen’s hand-writing ?” 

Answer .—“ I cannot—they write pretty close together.” 

Question. —“ From 447 to 470'?” 

Answer. —“There are three names there written by me, and there are 
some four or five names look like McMullen’s, and the rest is Megarey’s.” 

Question. —“ Give the four or five of McMullen’s '?” 

Answer. —“ 397.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ You are not where I am; I am from 447 to 470 ?” 

Witness. —“ Oh! I must get down to that.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ I want to know in whose hand-writing that interval 
is 1 ?” 

Answer. —“ That I can’t tell, for I don’t think that I was in the house 
at that time. At 460 I commenced.” 

Question. —“ In whose hand-writing are those previous to 460 ?” 

Answer.—" It looks like McMullen’s, some part of it, I think ) 439, 

18 


4 


138 

40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, are McMullen’s, and the rest is Megarey’s, 
with the exception of three I wrote myself.” 

Question. —“ From 470 to 7501” 

Answer. —“ 662, 663, 664, is my own hand-writing, and the rest, 
down to 750, is Megarey’s.” 

Question. —“ From 750 to 760 1” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know, I must have been out of the room at the 
time. I don’t recognise that hand-writing. It looks more like Megarey’s 
than McMullen’s.” 

Q uestion .—“ Does it look like Hay burn’s 1” 

Answer. —“He writes a fuller hand. I think it looks more like 
Megarey’s.” 

Question. —“ From 760 to 10751” 

Answer. —“ There are two different hand-writings, so far. There is 
McMullen’s and Megarey’s.” 

Question .—“Tell which is which 1” 

Answer. —“ I can’t do it more than from the face of the paper. It 
seems pretty much all in Megarey’s hand-writing. I think 847 is in 
McMullen’s hand-writing. Iam not certain of it. 847, 48, 49, 50, 51, 
52, is in McMullen’s writing, I think. I think the rest is in Megarey’s. 
From 1075 to 1175 is Megarey’s. 1176, 1177, 1178, and 1179, seems 
to be mine; so does 1180. From 1181 down, seems to me to be 
Megarey’s. I made a mistake there.” 

Question .■—“From 1175 to 11S7?” 

Jlnswer. —“ That looks in the hand-writing of Hayburn. There are 
two names in my hand-writing, but the rest is Hayburn’s.” 

Question. —“From 1187 to 12231” 

Answer .—“ Hayburn’s.” 

Question. —“Then Hayburn’s began at 1175 and went the list out?” 
Answer. Yes, sir, I think so.” 

Question .—“ Did you number your list of voters before you wrote the 
names on it?” 

Answer. —“ They were numbered as we proceeded with the balloting 
through the day.” 

Question. —“ Did you number any in advance ?” 

Answer. —“ I think I did—down to 141—it looks like my figures that 
far.” 

Question. —“ I asked whether you numbered them in advance of the 
receipt of votes ?” 

Answer.— u In the early part of the day the numbers were in advance, 
but after night it was impossible to number.” 

Question. —“Did vou number any numbers in advance of the voters?’’ 

Answer. —“ I did, at the first commencement, when the polls opened, 




139 


some hundred and odd, nigh on to two hundred. I think down to 14-1,1 
numbered. The votes were coming in very slow at that time, and I 
had a chance to number.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I mean did you number them down before the votes 
were actually received V 9 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Those were all the numbers put in advance V 9 

■ 

Answer. — u All to my recollection.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ If I understood you correctly, you were first seized 
at No. 94 V 9 

Answer. —“I don’t know what the number is, but I can tell where I 
left off with my hand write. That is the first time I left the house, and 
I commenced again at 114 V* 

Mr. Campbell. — “ Your first attack was at 94, you had made your mis¬ 
take before that V 9 

Answer. —“ I think I had.” 

Question. —“ Was your mistake that of turning over two leaves V 9 

Answer. —“ It was.” 

Question. —“ What two leaves did you turn over by mistake V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t see them there—they are not there.” 

Question. —“ What became of them V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t know, sir. I know this, that the one leaf I tore 
out myself, and the other was carried out with the numbers, because they 
had got loose in the book, and I threw it to one side, after skipping it. 
There was nothing on it. It was a blank leaf.” 

Question. —“ When you wrote, these papers were tied together at the 
top, as now 

Answer. — u They were, sir. They were very loosely tied, and I tied 
them over tighter myself. There is no mistake about the fact that they 
were tied together.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“If your mistake occurred before 94 and you turned 
over two blank leaves, show me where on the top of the page you began 
again V 9 

Answer. —“ I didn’t commence there again myself, but Megarey com¬ 
menced for me at No. 95.” 

Question. —“ This place, where Megarey began for you, is the next 
regular leaf from where vou left off: where is the next one?” 

Answer .—“ It must be here; I guess Megarey began on the blank leaf 
I left unfilled ; it must be; it is there.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Do I understand you, Megarey did begin the blank 
leaf after your mistake ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir; because they found in my turning over I had 
made the mistake of turning two leaves, and I went out when Megarey 


HO 


commenced the two leaves to carry it out straight; there is where he 
commenced.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ As soon as you made your mistake you left ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t say that; there is my writing there after I disco¬ 
vered the mistake.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Your mistake was made before you wrote 94 ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir, and that is the leaf that is missing; 95 is conti¬ 
nued right over here, and the leaf must have been in there.” 

Question. —“ The leaf was between 94 and 95 ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir; it was certainly. The two leaves were there. I 
am sure they were when I first got hold of it, and they are not there now* 
They were taken out. One leaf is taken out. There is only one leaf 
missing. I turned over but the one leaf. I skipped only one leaf.” 

Question. —■“ Didn’t you say you skipped two ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes I did. It is right;—if you will allow me to explain 
I will. As that is loose there now, there was one leaf loose that I threw 
out—the other I skipped. I only skipped one.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You didn’t skip but one, then ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ The leaf that you did skip was left in the list of voters, 
was it?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, it was not.” 

Question .—“ Then both were torn out V 9 

Answer .—“ One was torn out, and the other I tore out myself, for there 
was no writing on either one of them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ On no page that you skipped was there any writing 
ever pur?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, never.” 

b — (C what was the necessity of anybody writing 

Answer .—“ I did’t know anybody wrote back on these leaves.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Your mistake occurred before 94 ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell —“Show me where the leaves were in, when the skin 
took place?” F 

Answer. —“ They must have been between these two sheets.” 

Question .—“ If that mistake occurred before you got to 94. how is it 
that the two missing leaves are after 9 4- ?” 

Answer.—“ I had skipped—I am a little mistaken and will correct my- 
6e ^ was before I got to this leaf. I had turned over two between 
these two leaves, before I got there. I had turned these two over—one 
was torn out—in turning over the leaf—one was loose and taken out.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Look where these missing leaves were?” 


141 


Witness .—“ There was but one. I did’nt tell you there was two, there 
is one missing leaf there, that is all I know of.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ That was a blank and you tore it out ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes. sir.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ On that missing list nothing was written V 9 

Answer. —“ No, not that I recollect of.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ How, if that was right, and you wrote 141 number 
in advance, do the numbers correspond?” 

Answer .—“ Because I had missed that leaf in between the others, and 
to make it correspond I took it out. I did’nt want to go back.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You skipped that leaf when you wrote the numbers, 
that was it?” 

Witness .—“Yes, sir. It was but a single leaf skipped when I wrote 
the numbers, and I did’nt want to go back on that list after numbering the 
others on the other list, and that I tore out.” 

Question .—“ If there were no numbers put upon that missing leaf at all, 
was there any difference all through between the names on Hayburn’s list 
and your own ?” 

Answer. —“ None, only I would get behind hand, and would have to fill 
up my list to get up with him.” 

Question. —“ After the election closed you compared your two lists, 
was there any difference between them ?” 

Answer. — u Not in names, but there was carried out in numbers. Some 
few names on his list were not in mine, and were carried out by Mr. Hay- 
burn after the polls were closed. 

Question. —“ Within the first 202, was there any difference between 
your list and his in numbers ?” 

Answer .—“ I can’t say for that.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You say positively, that this one leaf that you turned 
over by mistake, was not written up ?” 

Answer. —“ I do, most positively.” 

Question .—“Did you make any second mistake in the course of that 
day, by by turning over two leaves ?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my recollection.” 

Cross-examination continued by Mr. Brown. — Question. —“ The list in 
your hand was kept partly by you ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ Look at 923, what name is there ?” 

Answer. —“ P. McKeever, I believe. 924 is Samuel McGowan ; 925, 
Andrew McQuillan; 926, is Patrick McCahen.” 

Question. —“ Did you examine the Assessor’s list during the progress 
of the reception of these votes ?” 

Answer .—“ I did not.” 


142 


Mr. Brown. —“I find on the Assessor’s list, the names of P. McKeever, 
Samuel McGowan, Andrew McQuillan, and Patrick McCahen, in regular 
successive order; do you know how it happened that these four votes 
correspond precisely with the Assessor’s list ?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir, for I hadn’t the Assessor’s list, and didn’t look at 
it during the day.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ Look at 942 and 943 ?” 

Answer .—“They are Edward Virtue and Anthony Vance.” 

Question .—“ Can you account for their votes being received at the 
same time'?” 

Answer. —“ I cannot.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ Look at 945 and 946 V 9 

Witness .—“They are John M. Vanderslice and Andrew Vine.” 

Mr. Brown _“ They are in direct connection on the Assessor’s list, can 

you account for their voting together ?” 

Answer. —“ I cannot.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ In whose hand-writing are these different names taken 
down ?” 

Answer. —“Virtue, Vance, McCarty, Vanderslice and Vine, look like 
the writing of McMullen, if I am not mistaken.” 

Question. —“In whose handwriting are the names attached to No*. 
923-4-5-6 taken down?” 

Answer. —“ It is in the hand-writing of Megarey.” 

Question. —“ At what time did you and the other clerk compare your 
lists together ?” 

Answer. —“ After the polls had closed.” 

Question. —“ At what time was the transfer made by the other clerk 
from his list to yours ?” 

Answer. —“ Directly after the closing of the polls. I think some part 
of it was written before the closing of the polls. I can’t say positive.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ Some few were written before the closing of the polls?” 

Answer. —“ I am not certain of that.” 

Question .—“ By whom do you think they were written ?” 

Answer. —“ By Hayburn.” 

Mr. Brown. —“If they were coming in so fast before the closing of the 
polls, how could he keep your list and his at the same time ?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t say that he did.” 

Question. —“ Why do you think he did ?” 

Answer. —“ It struck my memory, but I don’t say for certain. The 
last part of my list was copied off by Hayburn himself. I don’t think I 
wrote 20 names on the list after the falling off. I don’t recollect his 
writing any names before the polls closed.” 

Question .—“ Why did you say so ?” 

Answer. —“ I might have been mistaken.” 


143 


Question .—“ Do you think he wrote anything on your list, before the 
polls closed 1” 

Answer .— ££ I don’t think so.” 

Mr. Brown. — ££ Why did you say he did V 9 

Answer. —“I can’t tell. My list was alongside of me, but I was not 
writing myself. As for me to be certain whether he could write a name 
on mine, when he was writing on his, I can’t say. I should think the 
votes came in so fast he could not write on both, except a moment or two 
before the polls closed. When we were closing the polls another rush 
came. I did not see a directory in the room.” 

Mr. Brown. — u Beginning at 920, the votes seem to run down very 
much in alphabetical order 1” 

Witness. — ££ I can’t say that.” 

Mr. Brown. — ££ Did you see Hayburn refer to the Assessor’s list about 
the conclusion of the election 

Answer. — u I did not.” 

Question. — £< When were you sworn V 9 

Answer. —“ We were sworn between eight and nine o’clock. I was 
appointed by John Megarey on the morning of the election'?” 

Question .— ££ Had you knowledge that you were to be appointed on 
that morning, previously—had you made application V 9 

Answer. —“I had made no application, but in conversation with Me¬ 
garey, he said he couldn’t tell who he was going to appoint, but he 
wanted to see me early in the morning—that was the night before the 
election, and I had an intimation that I would be appointed from Mega¬ 
rey himself at the house of John McFall.” 

Question. — ££ Who were engaged in the conversation between you 
and Megarey V 9 

Answer .— ££ Nobody but ourselves.” 

Question. — ££ Did you make a copy of these oaths'?” 

Answer .— ££ I did not.” 

Question. — ££ Did anybody make a copy in your presence '?” 

Answer. — ££ The oaths were filled up and we signed them in the presence 
of Alderman Fletcher. I signed one I know, but I don’t know whether 
I signed two.” 

Question. — ££ How often did you leave that room that day, between the 
opening and closing of the polls, and how long were you absent at these 
different times'?” 

#■ 

Answer. — ££ I suppose I left the room some eight or ten times, some¬ 
times I was absent five minutes, and sometimes ten.” 

Question.-— c£ Do you recollect being absent fifteen or twenty minutes'?” 

Answer. — <c I might have been.” 

Question. — ££ After your first leaving there, did you ever regularly re¬ 
sume the list V 9 




144 

Answer. —“No, sir, not regularly. I was sitting by during the time at 
the table where the Judge, Inspector and other Clerk were. 

Question. —“ You have mentioned that Jacob May land voted, do you re¬ 
collect him particularly 7 ?” 

Answer .—“ I do.” 

Question. —“ Do you recollect about what time he voted V 9 

Answer. —“ It was sometime in the night. I should suppose it may be 
an hour or so before the polls closed. He came to the window, and his 
vote was challenged, and I vouched for him myself, knowing him to be a 
voter.” 

Question .—“ Did you vouch for anybody else during that day '?” 

Answer. —“Not to my recollection.” 

Question. —“ Was proof made of his residence 7 ?” 

Answer. —“ None at all.” 


Question. —“ Did you make any proof of it ?” 

Answer .—“No, sir. At that time he was living in Small street, be¬ 
tween Seventh and Eighth. I was asked and told where it was.” 


* 

Question. —“ Can you tell anybody else that voted about the time he 
did V> 

Answer .—“ No, sir.” 


Mr. Brown. —“ It is from the circumstance of your vouching for him 
that you form your opinion.” 


Answer .—“Certainly, sir. I don’t recollect any person that voted 
immediately before or after him.” 

Question .—“ Can you tell us of any person who voted between 7 and 
10 o’clock, that you can speak of definitely 7 ?” 


Answer .—“There was a good many there that I am acquainted with, 
but the exact time they voted I can’t tell.” * 

Question .—“ By what clock aid you open these polls ?” 

Answer. —“We didn’t open them by any clock. It was between 8 
and 9, but we closed them by the hall clock. I didn’t see a clock in the 
room. There, was one in the bar-room.” 


Question .—“ What time was it when you first left the room 
Answer. —“ I think it was between 10 and 11.” 

Question. —“ Can you tell the time when you left the second time '?” 
Answer. —“I cannot.” 


Question. —“ Can you tell when you left the last time'?” 

Answer. —“ I was going in and out the whole day. I left last about a 
half hour before the polls closed. I am satisfied I was out between 9 and 
10 o’clock two different times.” 

Question. —“ Can you give the name of any one who voted after you 
returned V 9 

Answer .—“ The only one I recollect is Mayland.” 


145 


Question .—“Did he give his vote during the last half hour?” 

Answer .—“ I think he did.” 

Question .—“ How do you tell that ?” 

Answer .—“By being out and coming in; just as I came in, some one 
challenged him, and I said, I know him, he is a voter.” 

Question .—“ How do you know what time it was ?” 

Answer .—“ That is very easily done ; it was at the heel of the hunt. 
Every man has his memory refreshed by thinking.” 

Question .—“ How do you settle that half hour as being the time 
within which the vote was given ?” 

Answer .—“I know it was between 9 and 10, by asking; there was 
plenty outside of the polls were asking.” 

Question. —“ Did you ask ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know whether I did, or somebody in the room said 
it was after 9. It was asked outside. I can’t tell whether it was after 
or before Mayland voted. I voted, if I am not mistaken, between one and 
two o’clock in the day.” 

Question .—“ At what time did McMullen vote?” 

Answer. —“ If I am not mistaken, we voted together. I am not certain 
of that. I think Megarey voted at the same time, and so did Hayburn.’ ’ 

Question .—“ Was there any other voter inside of the house, whose 
time of voting you remember ?” 

Answer .—“ I think all voted together, between one and two o’clock. 
I would not say for certain.” 

Question. —“ Had you ever been clerk of an election before ?” 

Answer. —“ I had, once or twice, but never in this ward before.” 

Question.—“ How then did it happen that it was necessary to send for 
Mr. Enue, to tell what was to be done with regard to the papers ?” 

Answer. —“ We didn’t know ourselves.” 

Question .—“Hadn’t you the law before you ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, it was there.” 

Question. —■“ Is that your name, No. 41, on the list of voters ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, it is not. At No. 546 is Peter Donnelly; 547, 
William McMullen; 548, John McFall; 549, James Hayburn; 550 is 
John Megarey.” 

Question. —“ Didn’t you vote with them ?” 

Answer. —“ I think I did ; but every man is liable to a mistake. I did 
vote. I can’t find my own name here. I know I voted, and I believe I 
had a right to. I am pretty well satisfied that I voted at the same time 
with the others.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ What becomes of your record then ?” 

19 


146 


Answer. —“ I don’t know. They have been in strange hands since I 
have had it.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ Yes, and before, too.” 

Witness .—“ That is a matter of opinion.” 

Mr. Brown. —“Find your name, if you can.” [Witness searches for his 
name.] 

Mr. Brown. —“ Have you satisfied yourself !” 

Answer. —“ I am satisfied that I don’t see it here, where it ought to be. 
I have not gone to the end of the list. I didn’t vote at the last.” 

Question .—“Were there any tickets in the room except those you 
received through the window!” 

Answer. —“None that I seen. I don’t know of any.” 

Question. —“ Where did you get yours !” 

Answer. —“ They were handed in from the outside. The other officers 
got theirs in the same way.” 

Question. —“ Did you vote before or after dinner ?” 

Answer. —“We had no dinner that day. I voted after my sickness. 
I was sick between ten and eleven o’clock.” 

Question .—“ Did you vote between going out the first and second time!” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know how many times I had been out before I 
voted. It was before five, and after one o’clock when I voted.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ You had the law before you!” 

Witness .—“ I didn’t say so. There was a book there, but I didn’t look 
at it. We sent for Mr. Enue for that, and to satisfy ourselves that we 
were doing right.” 

Mr. Brown reads from Purdon’s Digest. 

Question .—“ Did’nt you know precisely what you had to do !” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. I had always before a good man with me, that 
did the work.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ Was it simply to know in what box these papers were 
to be put, that Mr. Enue was sent for.” 

Answer. —“ It was for nothing else.” 

Question. —“ Look at this tally list; it has been stated that sometime 
was taken up in heading it, was not the heading prepared before you com¬ 
menced to count off.” 

Answer. —“ It was prepared before we commenced counting off. I 
don’t know by whom it was prepared. I don’t know the hand-writing to 
be Mr. Enue’s. I don’t know that it was the hand-writing of any one in 
the election.” 

Question .—“ Was there any delay in the heading of the papers 1” 

Answer. —“I cant say.” 

Question. —“ Where did you live at this time !” 


147 


Answer. “ I lived, when I was the clerk, at 352 South street, above 
Eighth, about four or five doors below where I live now. I am only a 
boarder there.” J 

Question. “After the polls had closed and you compared the lists 
with Hayburn, did you find any difference in that portion immediately 
preceding or succeeding the blanks that were removed ?” 

Answer .—•“ No, sir. The votes ran in their regular order.” 

Mr. Brown. “ Do you say that the blank leaves didn’t remain, and 
that from time to time the other persons did not recur to them to fill them 
up V y 

Answer .—“ Not to my knowledge. How could they do that when I 
had the leaf out! I am certain they didn’t do it.” 

Question .—“ What length of time did you take in counting off the 
Amendment T” 

Answer .—“ I suppose an hour or two.” 

Question .—“ What number of votes were there 1” 

Answer .—“ The Amendment didn’t poll the full vote. I don’t know 
how many there were on it. I can’t say whether there were more than 
500.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ How did you contrive to take an hour or two, in count¬ 
ing off 400 votes ?” 

Answer .—“ I suppose we took our leisure to it, there was no hurry.” 

Question .—“How long did it take to count off the next vote'?” 

Answer .—“ It may be three or four hours; I didn’t pay attention to 
the time consumed—can’t say how long it took.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ Can you tell us how you contrived to pass away the 
time between ten o’clock, on Tuesday night, and three o’clock on Thursday 
morning?” 

Answer .—“ We were kept four or five hours longer than we would 
have been, by the exactness of Peter Donnelly, the judge. He would 
count over each pile several times before twisting it and putting it in the 
box. I don’t believe he could read the votes. It was a mere matter of 
counting.” 

Question .—“ How did you contrive to take till Thursday morning ?” 

Answer .—“ I can tell you nothing more than that we took our time, 
and were in no hurry. Those that had hungered eat, but I eat very little. 

I did not say I took dinner. I did not eat, for I was unwell.” 

Question .—“ Didn’t you say you went to dinner ?” 

Answer. —“No; to breakfast—for I had no dinner. I can’t say how 
often I was out of the room on Wednesday. I may have been out a 
dozen times. I never left the house, only in the yard.” 

Question .—“ Had you conference with anybody in the yard ?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir. I spoke to a great many through the window.” 

Question. —“Were many around the windows during the counting?” 


148 


Answer. —“ I could not tell, because the windows were closed when 
we were counting. As I came down into the yard, sometimes somebody 
would ask a question and I would answer it.” 

Question. —“ When were you apprised, or anybody in that room, of 
the result of the rest of the election ?” 

Jlnswer. —“I didn’t hear the result of the election till Thursday, after 
we had deposited the boxes at Alderman Fletcher’s. I heard flying re¬ 
ports, but don’t recollect them.” 

Question. —“ Were you present in that room when anybody else might 
have heard, or did you hear what was going on elsewhere '?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir. There were flying reports that Tustin had been 
defeated. That is pretty much the only report I recollect till Thursday, 
after we had deposited the boxes. 1 was holding no communication 
through any window after the polls closed.” 

Question. —“ Have you not stated that you were in the second story 
and spoke to persons through the window ?” 

Answer. —“No, sir. I hadn’t conversation with anybody out of the 
window.” 

Question. —“ Was there any communication between those inside and 
outside of the room ?” 

Answer .—“ Not to my knowledge. I didn’t hear communication at 
all ) the only conference I had was in going down in the yard.” 

Question. —“ Didn’t you communicate then in regard to the result of 
the election out of doors ?” 

Answer. —“ I heard some say Tustin was defeated. I had not commu¬ 
nication with anybody out of doors. I never was applied to to make the 
returns, nor those with me to my knowledge.” 

Question. —“How did it happen that you took your leisure till Thurs¬ 
day morning 

Answer.—“We were done on Wednesday night, between 2 and 3 
o’clock. Mr. Enue had left before 10 3 I think in the neighborhood of 
10 ; I won’t say before 10 j it might have been near 11 .” 

Mr. Brown .—“ When he left nothing was to be done but deposite the 
papers V 9 

Answer .—“ I think the State officers hadn’t been counted off then.” 

Question—“ How long after Enue left there did you make the deDO- 
site of the boxes 1” * * 

Answer. —“ I suppose two or three hours, it may be four.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ State specifically what papers you saw deposited in 
the boxes'?” 

Answer.—“ I saw McMullen deposite the papers in the different boxes.” 

Question. — “ What specific paper'?” 

Answer. —“ I saw my oath deposited, and I saw one of the tally lists 
deposited. There was an Assessor’s list deposited. I don’t see anything 
just like it now : the tally list kept by Hayburn and myself was put in.” & 

Question .—“ Did you see the one kept by you put in ?” 



149 


Answer.— “ No, sir; that is here now. I only saw these and the 
list of Hayburn’s. I am satisfied that McMulien put in all, and Do- 
nelly and I sealed them; we just melted the wax, and I fastened it 
down with my finger; no seal on it. I am not certain whether or 
no I carried one of the boxes to Alderman Fletcher’s. They were 
carried by McMullen and Donnelly. I rather think I carried one, 
and Megarey carried one. We found Alderman Fletcher at home, 
and we gave them into his personal care ; nobody else was there but the 
officers of the election, that I recollect of. We delivered them to him 
between two and three o’clock in the morning.” 

Question. —“ At the time the polls closed, were there persons in the 
room other than those appertaining directly to the election ?” 

Answer .—“ Not to my recollection.” 

Question. —“ While you were counting off, was anybody in the room 
but the judge, inspectors, and clerks ?” 

Answer. —“ John McFall; nobody else, to my recollection. When 
Mr. Enue came there, I did say, that I thought John Lochlin came with 
him, and I think I am right.” 

Question. —“ Have you any idea of the time required to take a certain 
number of votes?” 

Answer. —“ No sir. I never timed it. The first I ever heard of its being 
timed by an} r body else, was here the other day.” 

Question. —“ Do you remember how long before the polls closed you 
received the last vote ?” 

Answer. —“ I do not, for I took no account of it. As the window was 
being closed, there was a person put his hand in to vote, which Megarey 
shoved out and would not take. I heard the clock strike. We are only 
a short distance from it.” 

Question. —“Can you tell what number of names was on the Assessor’s 
list when you first received it ?” 

Answer. —“ I cannot tell.” 

Question. — u What number did you add to it?” 

Answer. —“ I added none. I saw none added at any time. At the time 
they were taking the extra assessment I was there. I did’nt see any names 
added to it during the progress of the election, and know of none. When 
a voter not on the assessment list presented himself, if he was vouched for 
his vote was taken if his voucher was good. His name was put on the 
tally list. I did’nt see names put on the Assessor’s list that day.” 

Question. —“ Have you in your possession any copy of the Assessor’s 
list ?” 

Answer. —“ I have not.” 

Question. “ Have you any papers in your possession or knowledge ap¬ 
pertaining to the election?” 

Answer. —“ None whatever. I am not very familiar with the taxables 
of that Ward. It has only been about two years since I went back to 
the Ward from the city.” 

Question. —“ Do you know any man of the last 200 that voted ?” 


150 


Answer. —“ I don’t recollect. It is almost impossible to tell. I don’t 
know Violet Primrose. Mr. Elton I know is dead, and has been about 
nine years. I don’t know any other, in that Ward. I have heard of 
Virtue, but don’t know him.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst. — 44 Take that original list of voters in 
your hand. You were asked by Mr. Brown whether you had observed 
that the list of voters after 907 is in alphabetical order. Turn to 907, you 
find the letter 4 G ’ there.” 

Witness. —“ No, sir. I find Alexander Gillis. The next commences 
4 M,’ the next with 4 K,’ next 4 M,’ here is 4 K,’ then 4 C,’ then 4 C’ again ; 
there is a 4 Me ’ to it j then are two 4 B’s, J then 4 G.’ 

Question. — 44 Turn to the front of that list, the second leaf, when was 
that pin put there ; did you ever see it before ?” 

Answer. — 44 No, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell .— 44 1 put it there in your presence.” 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 You numbered to 141 ?” 

Answer .— 44 Yes, sir; I am certain of that.” 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 If any of these numbers are in the handwriting of 
another person from 1 to 140, that person wrote them after you wrote 
yours V 9 

Answer. — 44 Yes, sir. I think down to there it is all in my handwriting* 
I think that the leaf that was wafered in, was done by Megarey. It was 
a loose leaf. It was not one of the leaves I took out. I think it was 
loose and wafered in by Megarey.” 

Question .— 44 These are your figures, are the} r ?” 

Answer. — 44 Yes, sir.” 

Question. — 44 These are your’s down to 188 from 142 ?” 

Answer. — 44 Yes, sir.” 

Question. — 44 Are these your figures ?” [List shown him.] 

Answer. — 44 That is my handwriting, but not my figures; these two 
pages.” 

Mr. Hirst .— 44 The first page, which the witness says are his numbers? 
is from 1 to 47; the next, which he says are not his, are from 48 to 94 5 
the next is, from 95 to 141, not his figures; from 142 to 188 are his 
figures—these two leaves. This leaf from 95 to 141 is wafered to the 
other.” 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 You have been questioned in reference to the chal¬ 
lenging of voters, was any vote received there that was not on the assess¬ 
ment list, that was not vouched for by a citizen or known to the officers?” 

Answer. — 44 There were several votes received during the day, not on 
the assessment list, which were vouched for by persons on the outside. 
They were sworn and examined. Several voters came up and Were chal¬ 
lenged and were sworn to by other citizens.” 

Question. — 44 Was there any vote received that day to your knowledge, 
that was either challenged or that the names didn’t appear on the assess- 

\ 


151 


ment list, except upon the oath or affirmation of a citizen vouching for it, 
or the fact was known to the officers'?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge.” 

Question. “ Do you remember whether on any occasion when you 
were out, any other of the officers were away'?” 

Answer .— a I seen none out when I was out, and I always found them 
there, when I returned.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell.—Question. —“ Was the Assessor’s 
list looked at except when a man was challenged V 9 

Answer. —“ I think so. I think they waited till a man was challenged 
before they looked at the Assessor’s list. There was men on the outside, 
on both sides of the question that had the list in their hands. If the vote 
was not challenged it was taken.” 

Question. —“ How many oaths were administered that day '?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t say.” 

Question. —“Can you give the name of any man besides yourself that 
vouched that day'?” 

Answer. — <£ There was plenty outside, but I can’t say now; it has 
slipped my memory.” 

Question. —“ Can you give the name of a man vouched for except the 
one you mentioned'?” 

Answer. —“ No. I didn’t pay attention to it, who vouched or who 
didn’t. I was so unwell and nervous that I didn’t pay much attention to 
anything except sitting by.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I understand you to say that this paper put in here 
on the list of voters was not one of the two leaves torn out ?•” 

Witness. —“ I don’t know anything but about the one leaf—that one 
leaf I took out had no writing on it and it was not put in afterwards to 
my knowledge—there was a loose leaf thet was put in afterwards by 
Megarey—it was written on.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Are these your figures'?” [List shown him.] 

Answer. —“ They are not my figures, but that is my hand writing. 
There are two sheets here not my figures.” 

Question. —“ If there are two not your figures, are you right or wrong, 
when you tell us there was but one sheet taken out 1" 

Answer. — u I am right; there was one sheet, as I told you before.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You figured up to 141 ?” 

Answer. —“ So I thought, and think so yet.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ There was but one leaf lost, how is it that there are 
two leaves without your figures '?” 

Answer .—“ I can’t explain it, for it has slipped my memory, but I know 
this is my hand-writing.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Part of the 141 figures is on two leaves 1” 

Witness. —“ I cant tell. I never said about the figures. I said about 
the writing.” 


152 


Mr. Campbell .—“ Do you say you have never sworn that you numbered 
to 141 in advance ?” 

Answer. —“ I wouldn’t like to say, but don’t recollect. I may have 
said so, if I did, I thought so.” 

Question. —“ Is it true ?” 

Answer .—“ I see here it is not, for the list itself shows it is not true. I 
know my own figures, and these are not mine.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“You said you wrote 141 numbers in advance'?” 

Witness. —“ If I did say that, by looking over the list and seeing my 
writing, I thought I had done it, but I see these are figures there not mine.” 

Question. —“ What figures were on the blank leaf'?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect whether there was any on it or not. I 
think there was none on it.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Didn’t you tell me before, that the reason for tearing 
out the blank leaf was because there were numbers on it.” 

Answer .—“ I said it was loose.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Your best memory is, that there was no writing 
upon the leaf taken out ?” 

Answer. —“ I say now, as before, to the best of my knowledge, there 
was none on it. I don’t think there was any.” 

Question .—“ Be good enough to tel] if there was no figures or writing 
on the leaf taken out; who put that 48 there '?” 

* 

Answer .—“ I don’t recollect; I can’t say. That may have been done 
perhaps when I was in the yard, by Hayburn or somebody else.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You hadn’t gone out in the yard, then ; you didn’t 
go till 94'?” 

Witness .—“ I can’t tell who made these figures. I am satisfied they 
are not mine. I am perfectly sure of it. 

Question. —“In whose writing are the figures on this inserted leaf?” 

Answer. —“I can’t say. Some of the writing’s mine, and some not. 
None of the figures on that page are mine.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You began at 142 ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. These are my figures.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“If I understand you correctly, there are no figures of 
yours from 47 to 142 ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir ; none.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You were sitting there at 48, writing on regularly, 
why didn’t you put the number opposite that voter if you were writing 
then?” 

Answer. —“ I think somebody in the house had carried out the figures 
previously, but who it was I cannot tell. 


153 


J\lr, Campbell .—“Then £ 48’ had been put there before vou be^an to 
write V 9 ° 

Answer .— ££ It must have been.” 

Question .— ££ Was it V 9 

Answer. —“ Certainly it was there.” 

Question. —“If that 48 was there when you began to write, can you 
tell whose figure it is V 9 

Answer .—“ I can’t recollect.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ It was done before the list of voters began, of course.” 

Answer .—“ I can’t exactly recollect that. They were numbered by 
somebody in the house. I think it was after the polls were opened.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Your figures are to 47 V 9 

Answer. — ££ It must have been after the polls were opened. I can’t 
say while I was sitting there. I can’t recollect it.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Didn’t you say it was done by somebody in the house 
before the voting V 9 

Answer. —“ As the polls opened, I numbered them down to 48.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You said the list was tied together at the top ; when 

you used it, how did anybody get at it to number it V 9 

« 

Answer. — ££ Somebody might have sat alongside of me and done it. I 
think that is Hayburn’s numbering. He is a much smarter writer than I 
am. We were sitting at the end of the table, one alongside of the other.” 

Mr. Campbell. — ££ You say that as the voting progressed you wrote these 
names, and Hayburn wrote the numbers V 9 

Answer. —“ I do ; either him or Megarey—I think it was Hayburn.” 

Question. — ££ Is that part of your hand-writing?” [List shown him.] 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir; it begins at 112. Before that is Megarey’s. I 
saw that leaf stuck in. I recollect the fact distinctly. I was present 
when it was done. 

Question. —“ Was it done before or after you first went out of the 
room V 9 

Answer. —“ I have no distinct recollection of that, and would not like 
to say. I was taken sick at No. 94, and was gone 5, 10 or 15 minutes.” 

Question. —“ Was not that leaf stuck in, in your presence V 9 

Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge.” 

Question. —“ You went out at 94, don’t that inserted leaf begin at 95 ?” 

Answer. —“ It is there. I don’t recollect. I can’t say. I think it 
was put in, in my presence. I know that list was back several times and 
was brought up by Hayburn. On several occasions my list got behind 
hand and was taken by Mr. Hayburn during the course of the day. We 
sat by him and somebody called off. I can’t tell precisely any place 
where my list got behind-hand. I won’t undertake to say whether it got 
behind-hand as early as at No. 94.” 


Question .—“ Did you copy some names from Hay burn’s list yourself 
when vou got behind-hand V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t think I did. John Megarey copied from Hayburn’s 
list. I may have don’t it.” 

Question. —“ Is not this inserted leaf of votes what Megarey had had 
in your absence 

Answer. —“ There is some of my writing there. I have no doubt but 
what I copied some of these names there from Hayburn’s list.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ You may have copied some after 142 V 9 

Witness. —“ I don’t recollect where it was. This is in my hand¬ 
writing. I might have copied that from Hayburn’s list, but I don’t recol¬ 
lect.” 

Question .—“ Didn’t you say you hadn’t any doubt you did copy from 
Hayburn’s list 1” 

Answer. —“ I can’t tell what part it was.” 

Question. — 66 Was not this inserted leaf a leaf copied from Hayburn’s 
list V 9 

Answer. —“ I can’t say whether it was or not V 9 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I do not understand you to say that you recollect the 
receipt of these votes V 9 

Answer. —“ I do not.” 

Mr. Campbell. — cc You don’t know whether you copied these names 
from Hayburn’s list or received them from voters 

Answer. —I can’t account for that being in there. I have a recollec¬ 
tion that there was a loose leaf, besides the others, which was put in with 
a wafer. 1 don’t recollect at present whether I copied this from Hay¬ 
burn’s list or not.” 

Question .—“ You cannot say you received the votes of these voters, 
that are in your hand-writing/?” 

Answer. — u I didn’t receive any votes during the day—that is the in¬ 
spector’s place. I cannot say if I wrote these down as the voters voted. 
I can’t say whether I copied these on this list or the other. This is all 
my own hand-writing and own figures, and I am certain there is no copy¬ 
ing there.” 

Mr. Hirst asks Mr. Campbell to state the object of this cross-examina¬ 
tion. 

Judge King.—“ You want the counsel to state what is his object in 
cross-examining the witness, that would be to defeat the whole object of 
cross-examination.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ If my friend will promise to tell ns after it is over, we 
will be satisfied.” 

Mr. Campbell to the Witness .—“ Tell us now whether that inserted 
leaf was not the one copied from Hayburn’s list ?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t recollect. I can’t recollect what part of the list I 
did copy from Hayburn. The last part was copied from Hayburn’s. I am 


155 


satisfied it is his hand-writing, and copied from his. We signed it in the 
morning before we left the room, when we took the boxes over to Aider- 
man Fletcher’s. All the papers were signed at the same time, with the 
exception of the oaths, which were signed in the morning. There is no 
mistake about that, in my opinion.’ 9 

stated^ \f? am P hell '—“ You are as sure of that as of any other fact you have 
Answer.— I am." 


n Hf rS t again asks the object of this cross-examination, to which Mr. 
Campbell replies that he will tell him after he has gone through with the 
examination of all the officers of the election." 

Mr. Hirst. “ I would ask the Court, to ask the counsel to state the 
object." 

Judge Ring. a That would lead to an opening of the whole case." 

Witness lie-examined by Mr. Hirst. — 6i I think there were some num¬ 
bers numbered in advance, very few though, in the early part of the morn¬ 
ing the voting was slow, and some were numbered in advance. The first 
and fourth pages are numbered by me. I can’t recollect if I numbered 
them both at the same time." 

Question. — u If you had numbered them in advance, and had turned 
°fw ^ ese * wo ^ eaves ? would it not have made the precise error you speak 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir." 

Question —“ Didn’t you say one of the other officers of the election .car¬ 
ried out one of these leaves'?" 

Answer. —“ It must have been done. The two intervening leaves are 
in my hand-writing but not my figures. I can’t recollect at what time I 
left off.” 


Question.—“ Was it at 94 or 202 '?” 


Answer. — u It is impossible for me to say. I can’t recollect." 

Mr. Hirst. —“ You said you saw the Assessor’s list looked at several 
times inside'?" 


Answer.—“ Yes, sir. The Assessor was there and had his list in his 
hand." 

Question .— “ Do you recollect an instance in which the name was 
looked for in the assessment list and not found, where the vote was ad¬ 
mitted without evidence of residence '?” 

Answer. —“ There may have been some, but I don’t recollect. I can’t 
name them. There were instances, but I can’t recollect the names. There 
was several at night, I can’t tell how many, of men coming to vote and 
their residences disputed, and they had a voucher. Some two or three.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“I speak of instances in which person’s names were not 
found on the assessment book, and in which the votes were received with¬ 
out proof, how many instances of this occurred, and what time of day was 
it, and give their names if possible ?" 

Answer .—“ I cannot. I can’t remember. A number of instances." . 


156 


Mr. Hirst. —“ There is a witness who has been diligently sought for and 
not found, whom we consider it important to call at this stage of the case 
and as it is so near the adjournment, I ask whether you consider it un¬ 
reasonable to call him in the morning V’ 

Judge King. —“If you consider it important, I will agree to it.” 

Mr. J. M. Read. —“ We do.” 

Judge King.— “ Then you can do it.” 

Adjourned to meet to-morrow at ten o’clock, A. M. 

-- »<•»» - > -- 


Thursday, Feb. 27 , 1851—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

Mr. Hirst. —“ If the Court please, it must have become apparent to 
your Honors, that it would be impossible for the Court to go through the 
examination of the witnesses in this case, without sacrificing all the other 
business of the Court, and I believe this is the first occasion in practice, 
in which the Court have thus consented to hear the evidence in public. 
This has struck the counsel on both sides, and accordingly, when I made 
the suggestion that this case should take the ordinary course, and go to an 
examiner, I found it met with atttention from our friends on the other side, 
and finally with agreement. The counsel on both sides have accordingly 
agreed that the balance of the evidence shall be taken by an examiner, 
and have agreed to nominate a gentleman for that purpose; and we ac¬ 
knowledge our thanks to the Court for the attention they have paid to the 
testimony on both sides. When the testimony shall have been reduced to 
writing, it will be argued by the counsel. The gentleman who has been 
named, and met with the approbation of both parties, is David Webster, 
Esq. It is with the Court to say whether they will agree to the arrange¬ 
ment made by counsel. 

J udge King.- —“ Of course, it is not for us to oppose your suggestion.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ It was at my suggestion that the Court ordered that there 
should be a public hearing.” 

Adjourned to meet at the office of David Webster, Esq., at four o’clock, 
this afternoon. 


Saturday, March 1,1851.—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

David Webster , Esq. —“ In the matter of the contested election of 
District Attorney, I ask leave, as Examiner, to make a report to the 
Court. [Reads the report .] I add to that the notes of the testimony. 
The testimony was coupled with an offer, which I will read. [Reads the 
offer from the previous notes.] For Report and Testimony , before Ex¬ 
aminer , see Appendix. 

Mr. Brown. —“ May it please the Court, it must be perfectly apparent 
to you, I think, from the brief recital of what has taken place elsewhere, 




157 


that this, as it has turned out, was an exceedingly improvident reference. 
So far as the counsel were concerned, it is more than probable it was in 
good faith, but there are contingencies that regulate matters, which we 
sometimes complain of, but cannot always forestall. I think the matter 
will come to this—it must be restored to the tribunal from which it ema¬ 
nated ; because, if a different course is to be pursued, every fifteen minutes 
there will have to be another reference to you ; and before this case can be 
terminated, the very duration of the office will have expired. So far as re¬ 
gards the present contestants and respondent, I- am satisfied that this is a 
matter essentially requiring a public investigation. This is essential to 
the Court; it is essential to the parties; it is essential to the witnesses; 
it is essential to the community, whose interests are involved in this 
consideration. Let me say, in addition to this, that it is exceedingly im¬ 
portant, that during its progress, we should have the restraints of this tri¬ 
bunal, and that we should have the restraints of public opinion to a certain 
extent, and that you should see the witnesses, when making their state¬ 
ments. These are important; an Examiner cannot convey these. Your 
Honors cannot be apprised of the character, the condition, or circum¬ 
stances of the witnesses under examination. I am, therefore, clearly of 
opinion, that it is essentially necessary that the matter should be restored 
to you, and that as the offence has been a public one, the exposition shall 
be public. Look to the results of this. I may be pardoned for referring 
to it, but already rumors are circulated, suggesting that one party skulked 
and the other skulked. Everything that is concealed, is naturally a 
subject of misapprehension. Let these things be done publicly; it is a 
great public question that requires it, and time is not misspent, if you 
should overlook a whole period of the Court. This case touches the very 
sovereign, which is the law itself, and therefore, I apprehend that it is 
not undeserving your attention. I ask that it shall be ordered back to the 
quarter from which it emanated, and let us proceed with as much rapidity 
as possible.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ The remarks which have just fallen from my friend on 
the other side, render it necessary for me to read the report of the evi¬ 
dence up to the time this question was propounded. My friend, I think, 
spoke hastily when he said it occurred within the first fifteen minutes. It 
occurred when the last question was propounded to this witness, and I 
am happy to find that the examination of that officer, as compared with 
the examination of the other officers here, occupied about half the time. 
[Reads the testimony before the Examiner.] We came here, may it please 
the Court, to argue the question of the relevancy of this testimony ; as 
nothing has been said upon that subject, I submit it to the Court, with the 
observations as found upon the record of the Commissioner. It is said, 
may it please your Honors, that this investigation ought to be made in 
public-” 

Judge King.—“ As to that, I would say, it is of course a matter for 
the Court.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ I would like to ask the Examiner if he has in any way 
or form prevented the access of the public reporters to his table,—or has 
done anything to prevent its being public V 9 

Mr. Webster.— “ The house was open to everybody.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ The hearing, therefore, has been entirely public. It is 
enough, I presume, for us to say that we do not assent to the proposition 



158 


made by the other side to revoke the order of Court. T suppose, if both 
parties were to appear before the Court, and ask to revoke that order, they 
would refuse to do it, after having been entered into in the time and way 
that it was. I don’t suppose the Court would permit the counsel to come 
forward and ask the Court to change the course they have indicated. 

“ As to the privacy of this hearing, the Commissioner has just informed 
the Court that there is no authority for saying so. It is as public there 
as if conducted in any other room or public place in the city of Phila¬ 
delphia. I don’t know how far public opinion has got to do with the 
action of the Court. I know the public is a name that is taken great 
liberty with—often used like the name of Commonwealth in criminal 
prosecutions, without authority, and sometimes not for the best of pur¬ 
poses. I don’t understand what is meant by asking this Court in defer¬ 
ence to what is called public opinion, or what has emanated from the 
public press, to make a particular order in this case. I can’t answer such 
a remark as that properly, and therefore I desire not to answer it at all. 
This case has taken a particular course, with the assent of all the parties 
to it;—that agreement of counsel was ratified by the Court—the judgment 
of the Court passed upon it, and the decree made, which is now sought to 
be reversed. In conformity with that, has anything been done, except 
what was foreseen by your Honor ? Did not your Honor foresee that 
there would be matters of dispute as to rules of evidence, and very pru¬ 
dently your Honor took care to make a suggestion which has brought us 
before you. So that, that which was foreseen has actually taken place, 
and is now before the Court. It was expected by the Court that in case a 
difficulty of this sort arose, it might be presented on Saturday. Accord¬ 
ingly, when Mr. Brown, on the hearing before the Examiner, stated such 
to be the understanding, I agreed to it at once. As to the idea of trifling 
with this reference,—sending it out of Court on one day, and sending it 
back another I will not trouble the Court further in relation to it.” 

Mr. J. M. Read .—“ I suppose we had come here to argue a question of 
evidence, and upon that subject I had thought, as I suppose all counsel 
are bound to do, but it appears that a preliminary matter is raised, as to 
whether the whole matter shall be ordered back to the Court. Of course 
upon that question the Court have the power to act. subject of course to 
the remarks made by my colleague, and upon which I do not intend to 
say anything further. The question is whether the Court will hear us 
upon the question of evidence. I was not present before the commissioner 
at the time and did not know the facts till last evening, but upon the 
question of evidence, if your Honors choose, I should like to be heard.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ For the purpose of showing that we came properly be¬ 
fore you in regard to the subject already adverted to, I will submit the 
notice served on the opposite counsel, upon the 27th of February, written 
by Mr. Campbell to Mr. Hirst. [Reads.] The learned counsel on the 
opposite side knew perfectly well on what footing we intended to stand at 
this time ; so far as relates to that, it is not necessary that another word 
should be said. In addition to that, it is unnecessary to consider the ques¬ 
tion as to the admissibility of the evidence, if the present application on our 
part here be successful. The learned counsel has said, though it is not very 
important in the present position of things, that this examination took much 
more than a quarter of an hour. Now it took very little more at the time, 
than it did in reading, as the phonographer was there, it was almost written 
down within the same limit of time that is required to read it. In respect 


159 


0 Webster, everything was done by him that could be expected of any 
man, so far as regarded publicity, that his arrangements would admit of j 
biu that does not touch the spirit of this case—it hardly meets the letter 
of it. When courts of justice are to be opened, it means a little more than 
opening or closing the doors, it signifies a little more than freedom of 
access 5 it has reference to that public opinion which I have advert¬ 
ed to, necessary for the protection and justification or condemnation 
of the parties whose interests are involved in controversy; it is a 
matter of public spirit and public law, and therefore to tell us that 
the dimensions of Mr. Webster’s house would admit of reporters 
does not meet the case—it would require also a portrait painter to 
convey an accurate picture of the faces, their condition—all these 
matters enter largely into the contemplation of the case. It is not an 
ordinary case of mere pecuniary consideration, subject to ordinary rules. 

‘ A word to the wise is sufficient,”—you understand how important it is 
to see the men, and their condition, and who they are; for it is as neces¬ 
sary to know the character of the man speaking, as of the man spoken of. 
This cannot be conveyed by a phonographer or a portrait painter. Upon 
this footing, I ask that it shall be brought before you, representing as you 
do, the law of the land, the virtue of the land. I ask that your citizens 
who are deeply involved in this matter should see it, and to see how these 
matters progress, that they may be guarded against the repetition of such 
a thing. Is not this reasonable ? And in opposition to this, it is said, that 
there was an agreement and an order. There was an acquiesence on the 
part of your Honors—-you were willing that the experiment should be 
made, but for anybody to say that you have not the matter in your con¬ 
trol - 99 

Judge King. —“ Nobody disputes that.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ That is all then, sir.” 

Judge King.—“ The proposition to refer this case to an Examiner was 
suddenly started by counsel, and I may say, suddenly acquiesced in by 
the Court. My own personal reflections, subsequently, did not satisfy me 
that it was right. And so thoroughly convinced am I of that now, that 
if both sides wished to have this examination proceeded with before an 
Examiner, I would say ‘No; 9 and that, not simply from a capricious 
exercise of authority, but from a bona fide conviction on my part, that I 
shall be incapable of giving an advised opinion in this case, without an 
opportunity of seeing the witnesses face to face. It is in vain to conceal 
the fact, that this ultimately may become a question of credibility— 
whether we will attach credibility to sworn officers, or to persons outside, 
whose testimony may seem to impeach that of the officers; and it does 
not require the experience of a quarter of a century, which I have had, 
to say, that from no light can a Judge or juror derive such advantage in 
testing the credibility of a witness, as by meeting him face to face- 
observing his manner, deportment, conduct, and demeanor. This very 
case has afforded to myself an exemplification of the truth of this neces¬ 
sity ; in more than one instance in the progress of the case, I have been 
struck with the manly candor and frankness, and brave expression of 
truth, even in some of the very parties perhaps, who are assailed. 

For these reasons, therefore, I am disposed to hear these witnesses 
myself; and I wish to be distinctly understood, that this is not done on 
the motion of either side, but to enable me to discharge a great public 
duty* Again : I do not regard this case as a case between the parties, but 



160 


it is a great public question. First, from the allegations preferred; involv¬ 
ing the purity of the election, and also the reputation of gentlemen 
assailed. It involves the future reputation of many of our fellow citizens. 
For these reasons, it soars far beyond the ordinary cases in a Court of 
Justice. No Judge would try a man for the meanest crime, upon an affi¬ 
davit. If a proposition was made to my brother on the other side of the 
hall, to take affidavits in the case of a man charged with stealing chickens, 
he would refuse it as a legal absurdity. Public controversies like this 
should be heard in public, and the witnesses should be examined in the 
face of the Court. I repeat it again, that my own conscience cannot be 
satisfied, and I cannot be clear to do justice, without I hear the testimony 
myself, and can see what degree of confidence is to be placed in the 
witnesses, from their deportment, and manner of giving their testimony ; 
whether they answer with promptness, frankness, and candor, or whether 
they hesitate, equivocate, or evade.” 

Judge Kelley. —■“ When the question of referring this case to a master 
was first started, and stated to the Court, I thought I foresaw the difficulty 
which has arisen, and many others, and I felt very much what Judge King 
has just now so forcibly expressed, the value of a personal acquaintance, 
as it were, with the witness, that one only acquires by seeing, by hearing, 
by observing the manner through an examination and a cross-exami¬ 
nation. 

“ The proposition was assented to by my two brethren, and I acquiesced 
in it silently, but reluctantly, and my first remark to Judge King after¬ 
wards was, that this case would be brought back to the Court within forty- 
eight hours. I therefore can entertain but one opinion on the subject— 
that is, that it ought to come back, as it ought never to have gone from 
the Court. I say this for the purpose of adding another remark, and that 
is with reference to the Examiner. He was selected by the counsel of 
all the parties, and he has undoubtedly performed his duties so far as he 
has gone, with very great propriety; and I want to make it understood 
to the bar and all present, that this comes back on the merits of the case, 
after the official duty confided to him by the Court has been well done, 
and satisfactorily to the Court. 

“ My own impression was, when we commenced the case, that we had 
better hold two sessions a day. I have reiterated it from time to time, 
and I think I shall still occasionally do so. I am prepared myself to hear 
the motions for new trial, which come up on Monday, and which ought 
to be heard, and then to postpone all the other business of the Court and 
go on with this. If it be found by the result of this case, that it imposes 
upon the Court a jurisdiction incompatible with the other business of the 
Court, then let it devolve upon some other body. Certainly no other 
business is more important than this. It matters not how laws are ad¬ 
ministered, if laws can be corruptly made, and they can be, if our elec¬ 
tions are corrupted. I should be disposed, therefore, to postpone every¬ 
thing else, and go on two sessions a day, till the case is closed.” 

Judge King. —“It is almost needless for me to add that I entirely 
concur with the remarks of Judge Kelley, in reference to the Examiner. 
The order of the Court will be vacated.” 

Adjourned to meet on Wednesday, March 5th, at 10 o’clock A. M. 


161 


Wednesday, March 5, 1851.—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I will examine James Hayburn or read his testimony 
as far as it went, just as the Court shall direct.” 

Judge King .—“ You had better examine him anew.” 

James Hayburn , sworn. —“ I was a clerk at the general election, held 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing, last October. I was appointed by Mr. 
McMullen. The polls opened at nine o’clock. 

Question .—“ How long after the officers were sworn, was the poll 
opened 

Answer. —“ In the course of a half hour, or a little better, perhaps, as 
near as near as I can judge. It closed at 10, precisely.” 

Question. —“What niunber of votes had been polled at that hour!” 

Answer .—“ 1223 was on my list.” 

Question. —“At ten o’clock ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” * 

Question .—“ During what part of the time that the polls were open, was 
there the greatest quantity of votes polled in proportion ?” 

Answer .—“ I might say from six to ten, or from eight to ten, the great¬ 
est rush was.” 

Question. —“ Did you keep a list of voters V 9 

Answer. —“Yes, sir. No one assisted me to keep it. I kept my own list 
throughout. It was kept accurately, and there was 1223 names on it 
when the polls closed.” 

Question .—“ Were names added afterwards, of persons who did not 
vote 1” 

Answer .—“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ Who kept the other list V 9 

Answer. _“ Mr. Wurteim. His health was so that he could not attend 

to the duties of his office throughout the day.” 

Question .—“ Who wrote on that list of his?” 

Answer. —“ He wrote a portion, Megary wrote a portion, and Mr. Mc¬ 
Mullen wrote a portion, I believe, and I wrote a portion.” 

Question.— “ At the time the polls were closed were the lists numbered 
down to the end ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ Was your’s numbered down to the end?” 

Answer. —■“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ Was the other?” 

Answer.—“ No, sir.” 

Question .—“ How far down was your’s numbered ?” 


21 


162 


Answer. —“ I could not exactly state how far, because at the time, the 
votes came very quick, we had to leave off numbering, and merely write 
the names and carry out the.spots.” 

Question. — (( Was your list numbered down to the time the votes came 
in fast ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes.” 

Question. —“ How much of Mr. Wurteim’s list was numbered?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t account for that. I don’t know and can’t say.” 

Question. —“ When the polls closed were the lists corrected ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Was his compared with your’s, and corrected by your’s ?” 

Answer. — “ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ What was done in reference to the list of voters after the 
polls closed ?” 

Answer. —“His list was compared with mine after the polls closed, 
and the numbers carried out, and I wrote a portion of his list myself,— 
towards the close of it, to make it correct with mine.” 

Question. —“ Can you say, certainly, whether you had the first and last 
names of voters correct ?” 

Answer. —“ I had the first and last names correct. There was con¬ 
siderable difficulty in catching them, during the election ?” 

Question. —“ After comparing and correcting the lists, what was done?” 

Answer. —“ We commenced to count off one of the tickets. As near 
as I can judge it was the Amendment ticket, which received a very small 
vote in the ward, in comparison with the other tickets. The two inspec¬ 
tors and the judge counted off the tickets. They were counted over and 
over by one man, the judge.” 

Question. —“ Who tallied the votes, as the judge counted them off?” 

Answer. —“ I, for one, and the other clerk for the other. A portion 
of that time he was not able to carry it out, and had to sit down. It was 
Mr. Wurteim.” 

Question. —“ What did the judge do with the tickets, as he counted 
them off and you tallied ?” 

Answer. —“ He twisted them and put them in the Amendment box. I 
can’t remember precisely what was the next ticket counted off, but I think 
it was the Commissioners’ ticket, and the next the State and County offi¬ 
cers, I believe, the next the District Attorney, and the next the Marshal 
of Police.” 

Question.—“ Were they counted off, tallied and deposited in the box, 
the same or differently from the other ?” 

Answer. —“ Something the same as the Amendment ticket.” 

Question. —“ Did you finish counting off in the same room that you 
began ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ How came you to change the room ?” 


163 


Answer. — u We considered it too small in the first place, and the pro¬ 
prietor of the house wanted to give us some refreshments, and we agreed 
among ourselves to take the balance of the boxes up stairs and counted 
them off up there.” 

Question. — u Who was in the room from the time the election was 
open, from 9 o’clock in the morning, till 10 at night ?” 

Answer. —“ No person there but the officers and the assessor.” 

Question. —“ From the time the election closed, till the ballot boxes 
were finally sealed up, who was in the room ?” 

Answer. — i( One gentleman was called in for the purpose of informa¬ 
tion—Mr. Enue. Nobody else that I know of or seen. -He was sent for . 
for the purpose of information. Very few persons in the room on that day 
understood anything about elections. As for me, I was never in one be¬ 
fore, and he was sent for to know in what box to put the papers. 

Question. —“ Were you present at the election from the time the polls 
opened, till the ballot boxes were counted ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. I was there from the opening of the polls till 
the last ticket was counted.” 

Question. —“ As the tickets were polled, where were they placed V 9 

Answer. —“ They were placed in the separate boxes that they belonged 
to. They remained there till they were counted off.” 

Question. —“ Could the name of any person have been added to that 
list of voters, who did not vote without your knowledge V 9 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. — u What was done with your list of voters'?” 

Answer. —“ It was put in one of the five boxes, but I don’t recollect 
which one.” 

Question. —“ What was done with the boxes?” 

Answer. —“ They were taken to Aid. Fletcher’s.” 

Question. — u Before that ?” 

Answer. —“ The boxes were tied and sealed before they left the room, 
and then they were delivered to the Alderman.” 

Question. — et Were you present at the time that box in which your list 
was, was sealed, and delivered to the Alderman ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir. I was present all the time till the boxes were 
sealed and delivered.” 

Question.-— “ What course was pursued at that election by the officers 
when a voter appeared, whose name was on the assessment list, but whose 
vote was challenged ?” 

Answer. —“ The Assessor looked over the list carefully to see if his 
name was on, and they investigated his right to vote.” 

Question. —“ As to voters not on the assessment list what was done?” 

Answer. — u They were either vouched for by respectable, citizens or 
the officers of the election knew them.” 


164 


Question. —“ Were the tickets, generally voted on that day, tied together 
or open ?” 

Answer. —“ There was several tied together, and handed into the win¬ 
dow in that way. I can’t say as to the number.” 

Question.. —“Do you remember what took place when a voter named 
Vertine voted'?” 

Answer. —“ I remember the man’s voting created some little amusement 
at the time, as one of the clerk’s name was the same as his. He voted after 
night sometime. I can’t recollect what hour it was.” [No. 1090.] “ His 
name, I think, was spelled V-e-r-t-i-n-e.” 

Question. —“ What was said upon the subject of his name ?” 

Answer. —“ It occasioned a laugh in the room, some little amusement, 
that is all I heard of. The other clerk said he was no friend of his, or 
something of that kind, that he did’nt know him.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I now propose to ask the question put before the Exam¬ 
iner.” 

Mr. Campbell. —■“ Put your question, if you please. 

Mr. Hirst. —“ If your Honor please, I propose to ask this witness the 
following question, accompanied with an offer, which I will give to the 
Court in a moment. “ State what sum of money you received before and 
after the election, and from whom ?” That was accompanied with an 
offer afterwards objected to. I cannot do better than read the offer as 
there stated. [Reads from notes before the Examiner.] This is the pre¬ 
cise offer which we now make. It is not pretended either in the offer of 
testimony, nor will it be proved by the witness to be examined on this 
subject, that any money was given by Mr. Reed, or means used by him 
which had the slightest approach toward corrupting an election officer. 
Such a thing we have not dreamed of, and do not now offer to prove. It 
is a matter of sincere regret to us that objects and motives should have been 
substituted for our own, by others over whom we have no control. We 
propose to prove that, prior to the election, the witness now on the stand 
and Mr. Reed had interviews on the subject, and that the witness consented 
to be, and was an active electioneerer for Mr. Reed, but we utterly disa¬ 
vow and entirely spurn the suggestion that Mr. Reed has ever attempted 
unduly to influence the action of an election officer.” 

Judge King. —“ Do } r ou object to asking the question, whether he was 
friendly to Mr. Reed 

Mr. Campbell .—“ No, sir.” 

Judge King.— “ You certainly have the right to ask the witness if he 
was not personally favorable to Mr. Reed.” 

Mr. Hirst , to the witness. —« Had you interviews with Mr. Reed be¬ 
fore the election V 9 

Mr. Campbell. —“ That is not the question.” 

Judge King. —“Ask him whether he was friendly or not to Mr. 
Reed, first, and afterwards you can go on.” 


165 


Mr-. Hirst. u Were you friendly to the election of William B. Reed, 
for District Attorney'?” 

Answer .—“ I. was not, sir.” 

Question. —■“ Had you interviews with Mr. Reed, before the election ?” 

Answer. — u Yes, sir.” 

Judge King.—“ I think the shortest way of arriving at this, is precisely 
to know what you desire to prove.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ I propose to show that prior to the election in October 
last, he visited Mr. Reed, at his office, on several occasions. I refer par¬ 
ticularly to the nine or ten days preceding to the election. That during 
these interviews, it was agreed to between the parties, that Hayburn 
should be one ot the clerks of the • election • that Mr. Reed was very 
anxious, indeed, that some person favorable to himself should be an officer 
of that election, in consequence of it being stated that the officers elected 
were all on one side in politics, in Second Ward, Moyamensing. Before 
the election, the witness received, in all, to favor the claims of Mr. Reed, 
the sum of about litty dollars ; that this was not paid by the hand of Mr. 
Reed, but by an agent, but with his money.” 

Judge King. —“ For what purpose V 9 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Your Honor asked the details—I am giving them. That 
fact was communicated, by the witness, to Mr. Reed ; that Mr. Reed 
desired, and assented to the witness going into the house as a clerk of that 
election, and that with his assent, and at his request, he did go in. And 
we propose to show that, after the election, considerable sums of money 
were paid to the witness by the same hand—these are the general facts.” 

Judge King. — u For what purpose V 9 

Mr. Hirst. —“For the purpose of active electioneering for and sup¬ 
porting of Mr. Reed as District Attorney. After the election, we propose 
to show, that this witness received considerable sums of money, amount¬ 
ing to near three hundred dollars, from the same hand.” 

Judge King.— “ For what V 9 

Mr. Hirst. —“ That I am unable to say,—it is sufficient for me to prove 
the fact.” 

The question as to the admissibility of the evidence was further argued 
by Mr. D. P. Brown for the contestants and Mr. J. M. Read for the re¬ 
spondents. 

Judge King. —“In order to arrive at a just conclusion upon the ques¬ 
tions submitted to us, it is necessary to look at the subject matter of the 
investigation before us and the state in which the inquiry now is. What 
is the subject under consideration? Twenty and upwards citizens of this 
Commonwealth, two of whom have taken oath to the correctness of the 
facts, have averred that the election in Second Ward, Moyamensing, was 
conducted fraudulently, or irregularly, or both. To establish the allega¬ 
tion of fraud, 150 citizens have been examined who say that they deposi¬ 
ted their votes in the ballot box for Wm. B. Reed, one ol the candidates, 
while the return shows him to have received but 94* votes. It is also sup¬ 
posed to be shown from the examination of the officers that the election 
was not according to law : 1st. Because the Inspectors did not put in the 




166 


book a notification of the parties assessed having voted by placing opposite 
their names the letter “ V.,” a3 required by law. 2d. That they did not in 
those instances in which the votes of persons not on the Assessor’s list 
were received, write their names on the list. 3d. '1 hat the voters whose 
names do not appear on either assessment list, were not inquired by the 
judges as to residence and legal qualifications. 4-th. That after the elec¬ 
tion closed a large number of names, 200 and upwards, were added to the 
list, names of persons whose votes were never actually received. These 
are the affirmative propositions which the contestants have sought to 
establish ; everything tending to negative them, directly or indirectly, is 
clearly evidence ; and in receiving evidence tending to negative fraud 
quite as generous a liberality should be awarded to the party defending 
as to the party contestant. 

“ The inquiry here then is, does the proposed testimony tend to negative 
any of the allegations assumed by the contestants'? Suppose for example 
it could be proved that Mr. Reed, gave fifty dollars to the witness to aid 
him in furthering his election; would that prove that one hundred and 
fifty citizens did not vote? Would that prove that the assessor of the ward 
did his duty? Would that prove that votes were not added, after the 
closing of the polls, which had never been received ? It would not have 
a shadow of influence upon these questions. If that fact were proven by 
every man in Philadelphia county, it would leave the true inquiry before 
the Court, precisely where it before stood. Courts of justice, in the re¬ 
ception of testimony, require that any proposed testimony should have 
relevancy to the point before them, and where it has no such relevancy 
they will rule it out, and for these reasons:—first, if it has no relevancy 
it is a useless consumption of public time to receive it, and if you admit 
testimony which is irrelevant to assail an individual you must permit irre¬ 
levant testimony in his defence, and you may thus introduce twenty imma¬ 
terial issues which will prevent practically the determination of the main 
question. If these gentlemen produce this testimony, must we not permit 
Mr. Reed himself to be examined? Would it not be competent for him 
to assail the credibility of this witness ? Certainly it would, and that 
would lead us into an issue perhaps quite as extended as the original issue. 
Suppose it were even proved that Mr. Reed gave the witness fifty dollars 
would we not be finally forced to fall back in order to decide the cause, 
upon the testimony on the direct point before u.«. Suppose, on the con¬ 
trary, the allegation proposed to be proved was entirely annihilated by the 
testimony introduced by Mr. Reed, could it bear upon the case either way ; 
—would it have a particle of influence upon the final result? It could 
not. If no practical good is to follow from the introduction of testimony, 
is it not childish for Courts of justice to waste time in listening to it.” 

“Again, no indictment for perjury could be preferred for false swearing 
in such immaterial matters, and no man should be permitted to swear to 
that for which he is irresponsible. Every indictment for perjury requires 
that the false testimony should be relevant to the issue, and if the Court 
deems that it was immaterial to the issue an indictment will not be sus¬ 
tained. A citizen may say, ‘How is this? This law seems unjust!’ 
But the law is wise. It presumes that those who are called to administer 
it, are familiar with its principles, understand how to do their duty, and 
will not permit the introduction of testimony of such a character. To 
sum up, I am against the admission of this testimony, because it has no 
practical bearing, because, if Mr. Reed and every member of his party 


167 


contributed funds to promote the election, that fact could have no influence 
in the case. Even if they had bribed Hayburn, that would subject both 
parries to the penalty of the Act of Assembly, but would not prove this 
election to be valid. But no such allegations are preferred here. Bribery 
is disclaimed. These are in general the reasons why I am opposed to the 
admission of the testimony. I think this investigation should be con¬ 
ducted according to the ordinary rules in reference to the* relevancy or 
irrelevancy of evidence, for they are founded upon the experience of 
centuries—on the observations of wise, learned and distinguished men. 
I mean it is to be regulated by the same rules of relevancy or irrelevancy. 
There is no rule of law which regulates election cases by any other prin¬ 
ciple. For these reasons, I am opposed to the admission of this testi¬ 
mony.” 

Judge Campbell.— “If I thought the question was irrelevant, I would 
agree with the views of the President Judge ; but I consider this a ques¬ 
tion pertinent to the issue before us. To show why I considered it per¬ 
tinent and relevant, I will take the same course as the President. A 
number of witnesses have been examined as to whether they voted, li 
these witnesses are not mistaken, a number more votes were given for Mr. 
Reed than have been returned. As to that, the respondents have exa¬ 
mined the officers of the election, all of whom have sworn that the votes, 
as received, were deposited in the ballot-boxes. 

<c Here is a contradiction of testimony between these witnesses. Under 
this state of facts, I think the question put is a material one. If it is 
shown that one of the officers of the election—one who conducted this 
election, had friendly feelings towards Mr. Reed, it is important, as show¬ 
ing what his feelings were on the day this happened. If the officers of 
this election were of different sides in politics, it would be a very im¬ 
portant consideration in determining this issue ; but if it could be shown 
—I don’t care for what purpose this money was given—if it can be 
shown that the receipt of money caused friendly feelings towards one of 
the parties contesting this election, I think it is important, not only so far 
as his own testimony is concerned, but as corroborating the testimony of 
the other witnesses. This is the view I have taken of this case, and it is 
upon this ground that I dissent from the opinion of the Court.” 

Judge Kelley. —“ I agree so far as it goes, entirely with the view laid 
down by Judge King, and for the reasons laid down by him. I have 
hesitated for a moment on another point. We sit here in this case as both 
judges and jurors—we are to pass not only upon the facts that are clearly 
and indisputably proven before us, but we are to pass upon contested facts. 
Evidently, looking at the testimony in this case, as far as it has gone, we 
are to arrive at conclusions by judging of the credibility of conflicting 
witnesses. 

“ The investigation that would grow from the question proposed to be 
put, and the answer to it, collaterally to the main point before us, might be 
as the president judge has said, as extensive as the main investigation, 
before it had finally terminated ; yet it might enable us to judge of the 
character of this witness, of his credibility, and so of the credibility of 
those who are associated with him. Suppose a case which naturally 
strikes the mind of a Judge after what has been stated this morning. 

“The witness has testified that he was not friendly to the election of 
Mr. Reed to the office of District Attorney. It is proposed to prove by 


168 


him that, prior to the election, by the invitation and acquiescence of Mr. 
Keed, he assumed the office which he held at that election; that he had 
friendly interviews with Mr. Reed upon the subject; that he received 
from a friend of Mr. Reed’s, money, having reference to that election, and 
that Mr. Reed, by acknowledgement afterwards, in the course of conver¬ 
sation, admitted he was cognizant of the fact that he had received the 
money. 

“ Suppose the witness was to prove these facts, and yet the testimony 
upon the other side, upon the part of the contestants, was to show, in an 
overwhelming manner, that he had sat during that election, and had seen 
irregularities and frauds, and had been cognisant of irregularities and 
frauds, would it not greatly heighten the fact of his want of integrity ? 
Might it not in that way enable the Court to judge of his credibility, and 
that of the other witnesses ? 

“ This view struck me with much force, and I felt that upon it we 
might admit this testimony. But that would be in view of the fact that 
we were sitting with the functions of judges and jury; and the question 
arises, how far, when a jury has a case before them, will the Judge depart 
from the strictest rules of evidence to enlighten the conscience of the 
jury to enable them to arrive at a correct judgment ? May he violate the 
rules of evidence to enlighten them? He certainly may not. If he can¬ 
not do this to throw light into the jury box, can he go further to en¬ 
lighten his own conscience ? I think not, and however forcibly that view 
impressed my mind at first, I must waive it, and stand upon the grounds 
of the president judge, and concur with him in excluding this testimony.” 

Judge King. —“ I view this testimony inadmissible in the present state 
of the case ; I do not say that in process of time it may not be admitted.” 

Judge King to the Witness.. —“ Who opened the tickets?” 

Witness. —“ The two inspectors. I was sitting at one end of the table 
and the two inspectors at the other; they opened the tickets and handed 
them to the judge, they were read out, the two clerks tallied, the two in¬ 
spectors counted, and the judge re-counted. Neither of the clerks had 
anything to do with the votes.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I asked in reference to whether you were friendly to Mr. 
Reed or not ?” 

Witness. —“ I did not vote for the man.” 

Question. —“ Were you politically friendly to him?” 

Answer. — Ct I was not.” 

Question. —“ Were you personally friendly to him?” 

Answer.—“ I felt personally his friend.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Why were you personally friendly to him ?” 

Objected to. 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I have understood that the main difficulty in answering 
the question overruled was, that the witness had said he was not friendly 
to Mr. Reed.” 

Judge King. —“This comes exactly to the same thing, and then you 
might give the history of his life.” 

The question was argued by Mr. Hirst and Mr. Brown. 


169 


Judge King. —“I think, of course, that the party cannot indirectly ask, 
what has been directly refused, and I think the rule of law stated by Mr. 
Brown is a true one ; you cannot fortify your witness till he is attacked. 
For instance, a witness is called in a given case, and the party anticipates 
that he may possibly be attacked b}" the opposite party, and he goes on in 
this way, and entirely defeats the right of cross-examination. That ap¬ 
pertains exclusively to the cross examination .’ 5 

Mr. John M. Read .—•“ We wish to put in form the different questions 
$hich I suppose your Honor will over-rule. 1st. ‘ Previous to the last 
election did you receive money from Mr. Reed, directly or indirectly, and 
for what purpose? That I understand your Honor over-rules.” 

Judge King. —“ I over rule that in connection with the opening of 
your colleague, stating that the money was not given for fraudulent or 
corrupt purposes, or anything that violated his duty as an election officer, 
or any attempt on behalf of Mr. Reed so to do.” 

Mr. J. M. Read. —“ Did you before the last election receive money, 
directly or indirectly, from Mr. Reed, he requesting you to become an 
officer of the election in Second Ward, Moyamensing ?” 

Judge King. —“ I over-rule that for the same reason and for its total 
want of relevancy to the issue, which is, whether the election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, was fraudulent or irregular, or not.” 

Mr. Read. —“ Did you receive money, directly or indirectly, from Mr. 
Reed, after the election and connected with your prior conversations with 
him on the subject of the election ?” 

Judge King.- —“ I over-rule it for the same reasons, connecting the 
over-ruling with the opening of Mr. Hirst , and because in that view it 
is irrelevant; inasmuch, as if Mr. Reed had given him all the gold of 
California, it would not prove the election not to be fraudulent 5 nor would 
it prove it to be fraudulent, always understanding that as the basis of the 
objection is its want of relevancy to the issue.” 

Mr. J. M. Read. —“ Did you receive, directly or indirectly, from Mr. 
Reed, money, after the filing of the petition in this case, and connected 
with this case ?■” 

Judge King. —“ That is a new set of questions. That is a new view 
of the subject. State what you wish to prove by that.” 

Mr. J. M. Read. —“ I intended to connect it with what your Honor 
has already over-ruled. Your Honor has over-ruled the first question, and 
I presumed you would over-rule the rest. The question is, ‘Have you 
directly or indirectly received from Mr. Reed any money after the 18th 
of October, 1850, after this petition was filed, and connected in any way 
with this case V ” 

Judge King. —“I consider that question too vague and imprecise, con¬ 
nected with the opening of your colleague, and as such I over-rule it.” 

Mr. Hirst , to the witness.—“ What is that, sir?” [Showing him a paper.] 

Witness. —“This is the list of voters kept by the opposite clerk, Mr.. 

22 


170 


Wurteim. This is the first time I have seen it since the election. I think 
it is my hand-writing from 1188 down to the end.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Go over that list from the first page and tell me who made 
these numbers here ?” 

Witness. —“This first page is numbered by Wurteim, I think. The se-. 
cond page I cannot say ; the third page I think is Megarey’s—the largest 
number; I think the next are Wurteim’s, and the next I believe to b^. 
McMullen’s, the numbers are from 189 to 235. The next I believe to be 
the same, from 236 to 282. From 282 to 303,1 believe to be Megarey’s 
numbering. From 304 to 329 is Wurteim’s, to the best of my knowledge* 
From 330 to 376, I believe to be the same numbers, Wurteim’s. From 377 
to 423 is Megarey’s. From 423 to 470 is Megarey’s. From 471 to 517, 

I believe to be McMullen’s. I think mine begins at 1188, Samuel Haines, 
that is my first numbering. The numbers above that are McMullen’s, X 
believe. These names were copied by myself from my list, they are all 
names of persons who voted at the election. I had my list and copied the 
balance. All of these 1223 persons voted.” 

Question. —“ Were you absent from that room long enough for any 
tickets to be taken out of the boxes and others substituted'?” 

* Answer .— “ I was not more than five minutes out at a time, from the 
time it opened till the ballot boxes were returned to the Alderman.” 

Question. — “ When you were away, was any other officer out?” 

Answer. — “ Not that I know of. I have not seen any.” 

Cross examined by Mr. Campbell. — Question. —“ In whose hand-writing 
are the names on that list, from 1 to 84 ?” 

Answer. — “ They are in two different hand-writings, I believe.” 

Question. —“ Will you tell me whose they are, and where each ends ?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t exactly say that—there is two hand-writings. Mr. 
Wurteim’s is the first on the list. I cannot say positively where it stops off. 
I can’t tell where the other begins. I am not a judge of the two, properly.”- 

Question .— “ Why do you tell me there are two ?” 

Answer. —“ Because I see there is some difference, but I can’t tell the 
exact place.” 

Question. —“ Where do you suppose the difference to begin ?” 

Answer. —“I can’t point the number exactly, but I should judge it to 
be somewhere about 70.” 

Question. —“ How far is it certainly Wurteim’s writing ?” 

J D 

Answer . —“ I cannot account for the second page at all. The first is 
his.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Turn to the writing from 84 to 111.” 




171 


•Answer. —“ There is a difference in the hand-writing there; one is 
Megarey’s.” 

Question .—“ Whose is it from where Megarey’s ceases V 9 

•Answer. —“ It ceased on this page, at 111.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Then from 84* to 111 is Megarey’s V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t say all through, only a portion of it. I think it be¬ 
gins at 95 and ends at 111. From 111 to 202 is either Wurteim’s or Mc¬ 
Mullen’s, I can’t say which. From 202 to 290, I think, is Wurteim’s.” 

Question _“ From 302 to 342 V 9 

Answer. —“ There is a difference from 302 to 342. 302 is Megarey’s, 

304 is Wurteim’s, down to 329. 

Mr. Campbell. —“ From 329 to 342 1” 

Answer. —“ I believe it is the same hand-writing.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ From 342 to 4471” 

Answer .—“ Some is Wurteim’s and some Megarey’s. From 303 to 343 
is Wurteim’s, I believe. From 343 to 447 is principally Megarey’s, with 
the exception of a few names, which are Wurteim’s or McMullen’s. From 
447 to 470 is either Wurteim’s or McMullen’s. From 470 to 750, the best 
part of it is Megarey’s, and the rest is McMullen’s, I think. From 750 to 
760 is Wurteim’s, I believe.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ From 760 to 1075 V* 

Answer. —“ I believe it to be mixed between McMullen’s, Megarey’s 
and Wurteim’s. From 1075 to 1187 to be a mixed hand-writing between 
Megarey and Wurteim.” 

Question. —“ Did I understand you to say in answer to Mr. Hirst, that 
your own list was numbered regularly as the voting went along 1” 

Answer. —“No, sir. My list was numbered until the first mistake was 
made on Wurteim’s list. Then I ceased to number—about that time the 
rush of votes began to come in.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ The rush of votes began to come in at six o’clock in 
the evening 1” 

Witness. —“ That was another rush, the first rush was between nine and 
ten o’clock in the morning.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ From that time till the election closed you did’nt 
number your list V 9 

Answer. —“ No, sir; and all the numbers from that time were put down 
after the polls closed.” 

Question. —“How far was Wurteim’s list numbered, when the polls 
closed V 9 

Answer. —“ To a very limited degree—perhaps the first page or so.” 

Mr. Campbell.— After the polls closed, the duty was performed of 
numbering both lists from about the first page I” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 


172 


Question. —“On the list you wrote, were there any extra sheets left 
after filling up the names of voters'?” 

Answer. —“I don’t remember it. There might have been a sheet or 
two over; I don’t recall it. The names came to the bottom, precisely as 
this one does.” 

Question. —“ You state that fact certainly?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, I believe they came to the bottom.” 

Question. —‘‘Did you leave your seat at all during the day ?” 

Answer. —“ Very seldom; perhaps once, but not to interfere with the 
duty of keeping the list of voters.” 

Question. —“ You were examined the other afternoon before Mr. 
Webster ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Did you there testify that you never got off your chair 
for thirty hour* ?” 

Answer. —“ With the exception of rising up and sitting down ; not to 
leave until the ballot boxes were carried up stairs. I went there about 
eight o’clock, in the morning.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Then you never left the room, from eight o’clock 
in the morning, till the ballot boxes were carried up stairs?” 

Answer. —“ Not that I know.” 

Mr. Campbell .*—“Tell what Wurteim’s first mistake was?” ^ 

Answer. —“ He turned over a couple of leaves without writing on 
them ; neither of them were numbered ; there was no writing on them; 
lie turned the leaves over in mistake and hurry.” 

Question .—“Were these leaves used at all ?” 

Answer. —“ They were used afterwards by himself and by others—the 
names were written in on them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ They were not disconnected from the mass of the 
list of voters ?” 

Answer. —“ Not that I know of. I believe this is the page where the 
mistake occurred.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ He turned over after the first page two leaves by 
mistake, and subsequently, himself and some of the other inspectors wrote 
on these two leaves?” 

Answer. —“ They wrote on them afterwards—after they had carried 
out the list of voters on the other paper.” 

Question. —“ Do you mean that the whole of the list of votes was 
completed before they carried out the names on these two sheets ?” 

Answer. —“ No, not the whole list.” 

Question. —“At what stage of the election did they begin to use these 
two pages ?” 




173 

Answer. —“ I can’t remember exactly—it was through the course of the 
day.” 

Question. —“ These pages were not numbered 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question .—“Is not that number, 14-2, and the rest down that page in 
Wurteim’s hand writing'?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t say positive—I believe it is. It is either his or 
McMullen’s, I can’t tell which of the two it is. I am not a judge of the 
man’s hand-writing.” 

Question .—“ I think you stated to Mr. Hirst, that you numbered your 
own list, and the others, after the election was over '?” 

Answer. — “ They compared their list with mine.” 

Question. —“ Up to what point had this list been filled up at the time 
the polls closed'?” 

Witness. —“ Filled in numbers or names 1” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ In names.” 

Witness. — Ci There were no names put on, that I recollect—not many 
—after the polls closed, I mean to say. Only a few were added aiter the 
polls closed ?” 

Question. —“ About how many ?” 

Answer. —“It is on this page, from 1188 to 1223. All the other 
names on the list were put down before the polls closed.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You speak of that positively 1 ?” 

Answer. —“ So far as I know of this list.” 

Question .— <c Didn’t somebody else copy names from your list upon 
this one V 9 

Answer. —“ In the course of the day, the clerk occasionally did it, 
when he felt like it, and the inspector. This was not kept up regularly 
by the clerk. When he was not capable of attending to it, somebody 
else would step in.” 

Question. —“ Who copied from your list on to this'?” 

Answer. —“I believe both of the inspectors, and perhaps the clerk, 
too.” 

Question .—“ At what time of day V 9 

Answer. —“ All times in the day. Can’t say how often—don’t remem¬ 
ber. I can’t tell how much was copied.” 

Question. —“I understood you to say that your list and Mr. Wurteim’a 
corresponded—am I right'?” 

Answer. — <e At the close, when it was all settled up, they did.” 

Question. —“ Corresponded in numbers'?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“ The same numbers opposite each man’s name V 9 

Answer. —“ The same numbers. I don’t know about his list all the 


174 


way. My list was kept correctly. I can’t say if the same man corres¬ 
ponded with the same number.” 

Question _“ Do you recollect in numbering the lists, of finding differ* 

ent numbers opposite different names!” 

Answer .—“ I don’t remember it. I didn’t take notice so far as that.” 

Question.— 1 “ Who read off in making this comparison!” 

Answer. —“ They merely looked over each sheet—the clerks and in¬ 
spectors. I was looking at it. They looked down a sheet of theirs, and 
then of mine, or perhaps of mine first. They appeared to correspond. I 
didn’t examined it.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ These numbers were all filled up after the election !” 

Answer. — u Yes, sir, all except the first page.” 

Question .—““The numbering was taken turn and turn about!” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir. I numbered all mine.” 

Question. —“ Did you number yours before this was numbered!” 

Answer. —“I did. I wrote a man’s name and numbered it as I got 
time.” 

Question. —“ Were you doing that during the day!” 

« 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ When did you cease that!” 

Answer .—“ I can’t say. I don’t remember.” 

Question. —“ You said you stopped at about 10 o’clock—that was the 
last you did till after the election was closed!” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“ What did you mean by saying you numbered from time 
to time !” 

Answer .—“ I carried out each leaf.” 

Question. —“It was not filled up after the election,then!” 

Answer. —“ The largest portion was, the upper portion was not.” 

Question .—“ At what time did you sign your list of voters !” 

Answer. —“I believe previous to the ballot boxes being taken to the 
Alderman’s, sometime before.” 

Question. —“ What was done when a man was challenged outside !” 

Answer. —“ The Assessor in that case looked over his book.” 

Question .—“ Suppose he was challenged and his name not on the book!’> 

Answer .—“ They investigated his right to vote, otherwise he would have 
to produce somebody who knew him to vouch for him.” 

Qustion .—“ When they were not challenged!” 

Answer. —“ If the officers knew him to be a voter they took his vote. 
I don’t believe they took any that they didn’t know .1 don’t remember that; 


175 


it was not my business. Witnesses were called and examined when a 
man was challenged outside.” 

Question .—“ When he was not, no witnesses were called ?” 

Answer. —“No, sir. If the inspectors knew him they took his vote.’? 

Question .—“ Were witnesses called and proof made, if they were not 
challenged outside'?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, repeatedly.” 

Question .—“ Who made the proof.” 

Answer .—“ Whatever person wanted to vote would bring some one. 
If no objection was made to a man, his vote was received if the officers 
knew him to be a voter ; if they did’nt know it, witnesses were required 
for his right to vote, whether he was challenged or not. This was not 
done in every instanee. I don’t undertake to account for every instance. 

I recollect instances.” 

Question .—“How many oaths were made that day?” 

Answer .—“I don’t remember correctly. I could not say.” 

Question .—“ Can you give the name of any person who vouched for 
another that day?” 

Answer .—“ I can’t remember any.” 

Question .—“ Who kept the list of taxables?” 

Answer .—“I believe the Assessor did.” 

Question .—“ Who wrote the names in it V 1 

Answer .—“ I don’t know—I didn’t see any written in it.” 

Question .—“ Did you compare your list with Wurteim’s ?” 

Answer. —“No, sir, they compared their list with mine. I didn’t ex¬ 
amine it.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst. — Question .—“When you speak of 1223 
votes being received at ten o’clock, do you speak certainly ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“You said you left your seat once during the day, for what 
purpose ?” 

Answer .—“ To go to the yard.” 

Question .—“Did you go anywhere else?” 

Answer .—“ Not out of the house, nor out of the room, till the boxes 
were taken up.” 

Question .—“ In reference to the hand-writing upon the list of votprs, 
are you familiar with the hand-writing of the gentlemen you spoke of?” 

Answer .—“ I am more so with Megarey’s than any other. I am not 
familiar with the others. The paper on which my list was written was 
tied together. I can’t remember whether it remained so all the time or 
not—I believe it did though.” 

Question .—“Did you see it become undone?” 


176 


Answer. I did not observe it tiTl the time it left my hands. It left 
on Thursday morning, I think in the neighborhood of two o’clock, between 
that and three.” 

Question. — “ Can you recollect when the two sheets that were turned 
over, were filled in V ’ 

Answer. —“I can’t remember, exactly; sometime through the day, I 
.think. They were filled in, as voters came, after they had carried out 
several other voters before.” 

Queson. —“ Are you familiar with the number of these persons, so as to 
speak positively ?” 

Answer. —“ I could not speak positively as to any of the numbers.” 

Question. —“ Were the boxes deposited at Alderman Fletcher’s house 

Answer. —“ Yes, at his house. It is in Lebanon street, between Catha¬ 
rine and Shippen. His office is in Shippen, between Seventh and Eighth. 
He is at his office all day, except at meal time.” 

Question .—“ Where at night ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know. Joshua Fletcher is his brother.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Not having the slightest doubt in the world but that this 
witness would take the day, I excused the other witnesses. I have testi¬ 
mony for Moyamensing, and then I am going to Penn. I trust the Court 
will believe that I had good reason to suppose, that there was not a particle 
of doubt that the discussion and examination could occupy all the time.” 

Court adjourned to meet to-morrow morning, at 10 o’clock. 


Thursday, March 6,1851.—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

George Girl , sworn. — Mr. Hirst. —“The witness is No. 1066.” 

Question. —“ Where do you reside?” 

Answer. —“At the northwest corner of Seventh and Fitzwater streets, 
and have lived there for 17 or 18 years. I voted at the last general elec¬ 
tion in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Question. —“ What o’clock did you vote?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t tell exactly, it might be a little before or a little after 
nine, it was about that time anyhow. The only one I saw there that I 
knew was Mr. O’Neil, he is a neighbor of mine, he lives next door.” 

Question. —“ Did he go with you ?” 

Answer. —“ He was over there when I went. I saw him there. His 
first name is Hugh.” 

Question. —“ Were they voting fast or slow then?” 

Answer.—" They were voting just as fast as one got away from the 
window, another was at it.” 



177 


Cross-examined. — Question .—“How do you pronounce your name?” 

Answer. —“I pronounce it ‘ Gurrell ,’ but they always call me Girl.” 

Question. — “ What is your first name ?” 

Answer. — “William; I never get it once in a year. I am usually called 
George.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ At No. 700 is George Gurrell, and HuMi O’Neill is 
No. 691.” 

Hugh O’Neill , sworn. —“I didn’t see Girl put in his ticket. I under¬ 
stood from him before he voted that he was going to vote, and afterwards 
he told me he did vote. I saw him on the ground.” 

Anthony McMename , sworn. —“ I was about the polls at Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, at the last election, pretty much all day. I left there at 
night, after 10 o’clock.” 

Question. — “ During what portion of the time was there the greatest 
proportion of voting at that poll ?” 

\ 

Answer. —“About from 6 o’clock to 10, there were more people about 
there than any other part of the day.” 

Question. —“ Was the voting constant or interrupted?” 

Answer. —“ There was no interruption at all.” 

Charles Gilligan , affirmed. — “ I was at the polls at the last election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing. I was there before the polls opened and 
till after they closed. I was there about 8 o’clock and staid till after 10.” 

Question. —“ During what portion of the time that the poll was opened 
was there the greatest proportion of voting ?” 

Answer. —“I suppose from appearances, from after dark till they 
closed. I don’t know, but I suppose so.” 

Dennis Collins , sworn. — Question. —“ Were you at the polls at Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, at the last election?” 

Answer. —“ Times through the day and through the evening.” 

Question —“ During what portion of the time that the polls were open¬ 
ed was there the greatest proportion of voting?” 

Answer. —“ I didn’t remain in the place much in the day time, but went 
two or three times after night, and one of these times I went there a great 
number of people were about there. I was there about the time the polls 
closed.” 

Peter Cullen , sworn. —“I am constable of Second Ward, Moyamensing, 
at present. I was at the polls there at the last election all day, with the 
exception of a few hours about the middle of the day. I was there till it 
closed and afterwards.” 

Question. —“ During what portion of the time was there the greatest 
quantity of voting ?” 

Answer. —“ In the morning there was a large crowd there, about 11 

23 


178 


o’clock; and towards night the largest crowd was from about 6 o’clock till 
10, when the polls closed—voting all the time.” 

Question .—“ Do you know John Hassen ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question .—Do you know how he voted V ’ 

Answer .—“ I gave him a ticket, but whether he voted it or not I don’t 
know. It was a ticket with Kneass’s name in it, and the other portion of 
the democratic ticket. He promised to vote it.” 

John M. Dubassee , sworn.—Question.—“ Do you know Hiram Lyons?’ 

Answer .—“ I do, sir. He voted just exactly at the time the watchman 
was lighting the lamps. I went with him to the polls and gave him the 
ticketf As°near as I can judge, it was about 6 o’clock. I gave him the 
ticket and followed him to the window, when he put it in.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ His number is 774.” 

Question .—“ Did you see John Austin vote ?” 

Answer .—“ I saw him vote, and vouched for him. He is a next neigh¬ 
bor of mine, and he asked me to vouch for his residence. His ticket was 
tied together with a white string. It was cut apart by a knife inside of 
the window.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ Aid. Campbell has said there was no Robert Thompson 
in Second Ward, do you know of any?” 

Answer .—“ I know a Robert Thompson, who lived in a house for seven 
years, not sixty yards from mine ; he is a wharf builder. He has buried 
two wives since he lived there. I know a Mr. McGraw. I did not see 
any examined here.” 

Question .—“ Do you know a John Megraw in Second Ward, that voted 
at the last election?” 

Answer. —“Yes. He is an elderly man. He voted the democratic 
ticket.” 

Question .—“There has been testimony here as to tickets being dis¬ 
tributed by Samuel Wallington, and voted, do you know the complexion 
of the tickets he carried.” 

Answer .—“ Just before ten o’clock, I slipped over twenty democratic 
tickets in his pockets myself ; he caught himself, just before night with 
one in his pocket. He was accused of carrying democratic tickets, and 
searched and found one in his pocket. About ten o’clock in the morning 
I did this.” 

Cross-Examined .—“ Robert Thompson, the wharf builder, resides the 
third door from the corner of Eighth and Christian streets, west side, in a 
two story frame building.” 

Question .—“ Do you know more than one Robert Thompson ?” 

4 » 

Answer .—“I know two. The other is in Fourth Ward, that one has 
the grave yard. Except these I know no others.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ I find Robert Thompson who is assessed, wharf 
builder, Christian below Eighth, is that the man?” 

Witness .—“ That is the man.” 


179 


Mr. Campbell. —« I find such a man voted at No. 583. There is another 
at 1152.” 

Witness. —“ I know no other. I don’t know at what time he voted.” 

Mr. Hirst —“The object of calling this witness is to show the extent 
of Aid. Campbell’s knowledge.” 

Albert B. Ashton, sworn. —“ I was present at the polls in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, nearly the whole day, at the last election.” 

Question. — <c At what time was there the greatest proportion of voting?” 

Answer. —“ I wolild say at night. There was a greater demand for 
tickets during the evening, so that I could not keep tickets on hand. I 
judged that the Whigs were getting them and tearing them up, and to see 
if that was the case, I approached the polls at different times during the 
evening, and every time I went there, there was a stream of voters.” 

Cross-examined. — Question. —“ Who kept the window list outside, be¬ 
tween six and ten o’clock in the evening, upon the Democratic side ?” 

Answer. — <C I think early in the evening Mr. Ringland did, and I don’t 
know who had it late in the evening.” 

Question. — u Who attended on the other side, between six and ten 
o’clock in the evening? Was there anybody there?” 

Answer. — <c Yes, sir; a gentleman was attending. I think Mr. Perkins 
had it. I saw him there early in the evening. I saw him there attending 
on one side. I would not swear he had the book in his hand.” 

Question. —“ Was there a commotion there during the day, that induced 
a gentleman on either side to retire ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect anything of the sort. Everything appeared 
to be conducted in the best good humor.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You don’t know anybody but Mr. Perkins, who had 
the window list ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect. I might have known them, but don’t 
recollect.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I would state to the Court, that all the witnesses I have 
called, have been in attendance from day to day, and I sent word to them 
after the Court adjourned yesterday. I dislike the disagreeable process of 
an attachment, and I will send a carriage for them if the Court will give 
me time. I know there is no unwillingness on the part of the gentlemen 
suppcenaed, for every one of them has been in Court from day to day. I 
should think that in half an hour we could have them all in.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ As there were only eleven names called, I presume 
they are all the defence intend to examine, and I will send a carriage at 
the same time for my witnesses, for the rebutting testimony.” 

Samuel Bardeer , sworn. — Question. — u What office did you hold at 
the late general election, in the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn?” 

Answer — cc I was inspector. I was appointed by the judge. I had a 
certificate to that amount.” 

Question »— li At what time was the election opened V y 


180 


Answer. —“ I believe about ten, as near as our watches could tell. We 
had three of them there. Dr. Manson was the other inspector; Lewis 
H. Trimball was the judge, and Simon M. Gaul was the assessor, I believe. 
Mr. Binder was one clerk, Wm. H., or something.” 

Question. —“ Who was your clerk'?” 

Answer. —“ Mr. Binder, I believe, with our consent. John K. Hineman 
was the other. I can’t say who appointed him ; he was there, and acted 
as clerk. The polls closed precisely at ten, as near as our watches could 
agree.” 

Question. — “ Where was the election held V 9 

Answer. —“ At the corner of Tenth and Thompson, in a room we had 
to ourselves.” 

Question. —“ Do you remember how many votes were polled at the 
close of the election V 9 

Answer. —“ Upon my Honor I could not say the number.” 

Question. —“ Who took the tickets as polled during the day V 9 
Answer. —“ I did, sir.” 

Question. —“ From the voters '?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. As the votes were delivered to me by the voters, 

I laid them each where they were called for on the box, and whenever 
there was not a full ticket, I would tell the person and have him called 
back so that each man should have a fair chance. There was a great 
many that were not full, some said they knew it and would not take the 
trouble to get another one, and sometimes we kept the vote laying there 
for several minutes, till they could go and get a ticket to fill their num¬ 
ber.” 

Question. —“ You placed the tickets on the boxes, what did you then 
do with them V 9 

Answer.-— “ As soon as we found the man was entitled to vote,—we 
had the list there, and any one who was not on it, was qualified that he 
lived in the District, and any one who had lost the receipt was also qua¬ 
lified that he had lost his receipt, that he had paid within two years.” 

Question. — et As soon as you found he was entitled to vote, what did 
you do with the tickets V 9 

Answer. —-“Put them into the box—just shoved them in, every one 
where they belonged.” 

Question —“ After the tickets went into the box, were they carefully 
kept there V 9 

Answer. — (( They were; I had charge of the boxes all day, with the 
exception of about three minutes; I had occasion to run out in the yard, 
and came right back again. When the polls were closed, I shoved all the 
lids on, and piled them up one on top of another against the window, 
after the window was bolted and fastened. Then we took a rest for a few 
minutes to get something to eat, and I think walked across the room where 
it was on the table. I scraped as much on the plate as I wanted, and still 
kept my eyes on the boxes to see that all was correct; no person was near 



181 


them. I then went and ate my supper alongside of the boxes, so that no 
man had a chance to finger at them or near them. I was so particular to 
have everything correct. When they were all done, I drawed the lid of 
the box and turned it upside down, when all were done eating. They eat 
in the same room. I then drawed the lid of one box and turned it upside 
down, and then Manson and I sat opposite to one another, and we called 
the names off as they were on the tickets. The first box, I think, was the 
Attorney General—the ticket where Kneass and the other one that was 
running. There were three candidates, anyhow—Dickerson, Heed and 
Horn R. Kneass. That was the first box, I believe. We put them in 
three piles, each man to his own pile, and all the scratched tickets were 
returned back in the empty box. As we came across them, we put all 
the scratched tickets together, until we counted off the others, and put 
them up in tens. We then read off the scratched tickets, and the clerks 
took an account of them as we read them off. We counted them and put 
them along with the rest. We then shoved them up to the Judge and he 
counted them, I believe, three times over before they were put in the box 
—he himself counted them three times over. The first time they came 
out right, the second time there was one short, and they were counted 
over the third time, and came out right, according to the number that was 
given to him, and then we took box after box, all one process, precisely. 
After the Judge counted them the third time in the first box, and they 
came out right, they were put into the box—the big box where the tickets 
were all together. 5 ’ 

Question.—“ As he counted them off was any tally list prepared 

Answer .—“ I believe there was, and I will tell you why. When they 
were all counted off, there were two more votes than the tally list called 
for. The clerks run over the tally list again, and found that there were 
two names there that were not carried out and numbered. There were 
two more votes than what were on the tally list. The clerks ran over the 
tally list again, and found that two had voted, and they were not num¬ 
bered, and they were numbered then to make it come out even and right; 
and then the tickets were all put into this big box, and when we got 
through with all the different papers that the clerks had to make out, we 
put them in, and the box was sealed with our signatures to them. 55 

Question .—“ From the time you put the tickets into the box for Dis¬ 
trict Attorney, until they were, counted, did any person take or attempt 
to take votes out of it and substitute others. 55 

Answer .—“ No, sir. I am positive of that. I made the proposition, 
and it was agreed to, and we all went out and put in our own votes at 
the window, the same as the rest of the voters, so that there could be no 
jealousy. One went out at a time. 55 

Question .— <c Could the tickets that were polled by voters have been 
interfered with, without your knowledge l 55 

Answer .—“ No, I think not, sir. I watched too close. I had the law 
and my oath to observe, and for that reason I was very particular. 55 

Question .—“ Could it have been done without your knowledge V y 

Answer .—“ I don’t think it could. I don’t see how it could, for I was 
there from the time it opened till it closed, with the exception of about 
three minutes. 55 


182 


Question.— i( Could it have been done while you were present without 
your knowledge ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, it could not. I don’t see how it could be done, for 
my eyes were on everything during the whole day, till they were sealed 
up.” 

Question .—“ Who did you leave behind, when you were absent?” 

Answer. —“George Manson in his seat, and I told him to attend to it. 

I had to run out a couple of minutes. I can’t say whether anybody voted 
in my absence or not; I left behind me Geo. W. Manson, and the clerks 
and all the rest. To the best of my knowledge I was the only one away. 
When I came back I found them all there as I left them.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell. — Question. —“ You went outside to 
vote; is that the occasion you speak of, that you were absent ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell .”—“ Then you were absent twice ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, while I could walk from the door to the window, as 
close as from you to me. I left the other officers inside. I think I voted 
after the rush was over, at about two o’clook.” 

Question. —“ Did you receive more tickets in the morning than after¬ 
noon ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. More that night; from twelve to two they came 
in pretty rapidly.” 

Question .—“ What was done exactly after the polls closed; you first 
counted the county officers ?” 

Answer .—“ I believe it was the Reed and Kneass ticket. I think that 
was the first.” 

Question .—“You poured these out on the table ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. I turned the box upside down and shook it. Mr. 
Manson sat opposite to me at the table, and I took ticket after ticket, each 
separately, and we made three different piles as we read them.” 

Question .—“ Then you read each ticket ?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir, we read all the names on each ticket, and called 
them out. I suppose it might have taken up in the neighborhood of from 
three-quarters of an hour to an hour to count it off. I think it took us an 
hour, because there was a parcel of scratched tickets. We counted them 
in tens, (after we put them in piles,) and twisted them up; we inspectors 
did that.” 

Question. —“ Who counted the Dickerson ticket?” 

Answer .—“ We did.” 

Question .—“ Did both of you count all ?” 

Answer. —“ We both counted over one pile.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“That is, Dr. Manson took so many and counted them, 
and you took so many and counted them ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, till that pile was done, and then we called them 
off to the clerks, so many tickets.” 




183 


Question. —“Then Dr. Manson didn’t count what you took up, and you 
didn’t count what he counted ?” 

Answer .—“No,sir. He sat opposite to me. I don’t know what was 
the next ticket that we counted off, whether it was the Marshal’s ticket or 
which one.” 

Question .—“ As soon as you counted the ticket, did you make a tally 
list for the District Attorney?” * 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. Before we passed them up to the judge we .sung 
out the number and the clerks tallied them.” 

Question .—“ Who sat by the side of you ?” 

Answer .—“ Nobody.” 

Question .—“ When it was all closed, who sealed the boxes ?” 

Answer .—“It was done by the judge and the clerks. I saw them doing 
it. The tickets were all put in one big box, and all the necessary papers 
were put in there. We had five boxes there—they were all emptied.” 

Question. —“Then you put all your votes in one big box after th# 
election was closed ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. I saw them sealing it. I didn’t go away before 
that was done. I didn’t go till they were all sealed and the boxes was 
taken over to the Alderman’s office. I think it was somewheres in the 
neighborhood of 2 o’clock in the morning. 

Question .—“ When you summed up the votes did anything peculiar 
strike you ?” 

Answer. —“The only thing I observed was this; says I, Reed has not 
run as well as I thought he would, nothing near—his pile is small no¬ 
thing else struck me. I remarked that to Mr. Manson. We hadn’t 
counted them then, and I merely observed the piles.” 

Question .—“ After you had counted them did anything attract your 
attention connected with it ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ Did you compare the number of tickets given for state 
officers, with those given for county officers ?” 

Answer. —“ I could not say whether I did or not. The number of votes 
agreed with the tally list with the exception of two, and they found these 
two were not numbered.” 

Question .—“ You didn’t observe the even difference of fifty votes be¬ 
tween the county ticket, and the District Attorney ticket ?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir.” 

Question .—“ Your attention was not called to that by anybody there?” 

Answer .—“ No, not that I know of; I am positive of it.” 

Question. —“Look and tell me if that is the window list?” [Paper 
shown him.] 

Answer. —“It is more than I can positively say.” 

Question. —“ Is your eyesight good?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir; not very.” 


184 


Mr. Campbell. —“ The Assessor wrote down on the assessment list, as 
the voting progressed, the name of any man not on the assessment list?” 

Answer. —“ Not as I know of—I didn’t see him write one.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ I object to this, altogether.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ It is not for what you think it is.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I will withdraw it. All I want is to prevent an amend¬ 
ment to the complaint, by the cross-examination.” 

Question. —“ You don’t know in whose hand-writing that is V* 

Jlnswer. —“ No, sir, I do not know.” 

Question .— “ Nobody but Manson and yourself assisted in counting the 
tickets ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir—not that I know of. When they were counted 
in tens, they were passed up to the judge, and he counted them over again 
three times. He didn’t open our bundle—he just took it as we handed it 
fp him. He did’nt separate the tickets—he merely counted our tens.” 

Question. —“ Do you recollect how many tens you had for Mr. Reed ?” 

Answer. —“ I could not say whether it was 36 or 46, or what—there 
seemed to be a six to it. I could not positively say, nor could I give the 
number of any of those that were polled. I took no copy of them. The 
clerks were sitting next to me. As the votes came in, we called out the 
names, and the clerks wrote them down.” 

. Question. — u When you were counting them, did you call out at one 
hundred or at each ten ?” 

Answer. —“We counted out each ten, and the odds afterwards. Iam 
sure we didn’t call them out by hundreds. We called them out, so many 
tens, and told them how many there was, if the last bundle was not full. 
The other inspector and I counted them, and we then shoved them up, 
and told if there was so many votes for Reed, Kneass or Dickerson. We 
called out so many, and when the judge sung out so many, we knew it 
was correct. When we sung out how many there was, the clerk set them 
down, and we shoved them up, and when the judge counted them he sung 
out again.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ The clerk set them down as you sung them out ?” 

Answer. —“ I believe they did.” 

Question .—“ Did } r ou sign the tally list V 9 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir ; I am sure of that.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You are as sure of that as of any other thino- you 
have stated ?” 

Answer. — c< I think so.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Look at that tally list and see if you signed it.” 

Answer. —“ I signed all they gave me.” 

Question. —“ What paper did you sign connected with that election ?” 

Answer. —“ I signed a good many ; I signed all they gave me.” 



185 


Mr. Campbell .— <£ There is a tally list without anybody’s signature ?” 

Witness. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Do you notice that at the top there, the members of 
congress are marked by tens V 9 

Answer. —“ Yes, they came out by tens.” 

Question .—“ Is not the District Attorney marked by hundreds'?” 

Answer .—“Yes, sir. The way that was done; it was done to shorten 
time. I recollect that part distinctly; the clerks said it took too long in 
tens, and they would set it down in that way.” 

Question. —“How did the clerks write down from your calling'?” 

Answer .—“ I can’t tell you.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You said they tallied from your calling, and you 
called by tens, how could they tally by hundreds'?” 

Answer .—“We counted them in tens, twisted them and called the 
number out to the clerks and shoved them up in a body to the judge— 
they passed by the clerks.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“You called them by tens'?” 

Answer. —“ We twisted them up by tens; we didn’t call them out to 
say ten for so and so. We counted them in tens, and the twisted them 
up; when we got through we took the scratched tickets and put them to 
it, and counted them all, and then we passed them up and told how many 
votes there were. We said there were ten in each bundle.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“Then the clerks didn’t take down as you counted 
from the tally list'?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Then the clerks didn’t make up their tally list till 
the judge had counted?” 

Answer. —“ I cannot say as to that; we sung out how many votes there 
were, and the clerks were writing.” 

Question. —“ Did you sing out before you had counted them all ?” 

Answer. —“ We sung out the number for every candidate as we were 
going along.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ And the clerks wrote it down as you were going 
along ?” 

Answer. —“ I believe they did.” 

Question. —“ Did you call out Mr. Kneass’s and Mr. Dickerson’s vote in 
a different way ?” 

Answer .—“ All were called out alike.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Look at that, Mr. Dickerson’s is tallied in fives, is it 
not ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell.—“ If it took too much trouble to put down the tens for 
District Attorney, why did you put down fives afterwards ?” 

24 


186 


Answer. —“ As I told you before, they undertook to put it down by 
tens and they allowed it would take them till 8 or 9 in the morning, and 
they said that would answer the same purpose.” 

Question .—“How came it that after that they put Mr. Dickersons 
down by fives ?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t say for what the clerks done, I can only say what 
I did myself. I signed several of them.” 

Question. —“ Did you sign any one of the tall)' lists V 9 

Answer .—“It appears not, my name is not here. Whatever they 
handed me to sign I signed.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ These general returns I find have your name to 
them V 9 

Answer .—“ That is my signature. The others I believe have my name 
to them.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“It appears here that for District Attorney, H. R. 
Kneass received 409, W. B. Reed 26 and W. R. Dickerson 30. County 
Commissioners, the vote was 422 and 42, County Auditor 421 and 43, 
County Surveyor 422 and 42, Member of Congress 371 and 90.” 

Judge King, to the Witness. —“ Have you any idea how many scratched 
tickets there were in the County officers V 9 

Answer. —“ There was a good many; there might have been in the 
neighborhood of twenty, or so, scratched.” 

Question. —“In all the boxes together?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir. It appeared to be altogether the scratching on the 
District Attorney ticket—there appeared to be the general scratching on 
that alone.” 

Question. —“ Were both parties scratched?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. It seems as if both parties were scratched on that. 
In the Attorney General’s ticket there was three candidates, and as we 
called them out we made three piles, each one in his own pile. When¬ 
ever we came across a scratched ticket, we put that in the box till done 
with the printed tickets; then we put up the scratched tickets, and sung 
out the names and rolled them up in bundles.” 

Question .—“ Do you suppose there was a separate ticket for District 
Attorney ?” 

Answer. —“ I could not say positive—I think there was. -1 know there 
were a number of scratched tickets, and I could not say whether it was in 
the Attorney General or not.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“By the return, Keyser got 118 and Tustin 624 for 
both precincts.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ For Prothonotary of Court of Common Pleas the vote 
was 425 and 41 ; County Commissioners, 422 and 42; County Surveyor, 
422 and 42; County Auditor, 421 and 43; Marshal of Police, 384 and 
80.” 

Witness. —“ I think the Under Sheriff was there when the tickets were 
counted. I don’t know his name, but he deputized a half dozen to keep 










187 


badges on when there was no noise at all, nor any disturbance whatever. 
I think he came in in the afternoon, and staid, I believe, till it was closed. 
We could not tell lor what reason the Sheriff was there, nor anvthin°* 
about it.” J ° 

Mr. Campbell .—“ He came in the afternoon, and remained till after the 
tickets were counted. 

Answer.— I believe he did.” 

Question. —“ What business had he there?” 

Answer. —“I can’t say. He was sent for by some person.” 

Mr. Campbell. — u You did’nt send for him in reference to the boxes V 

Answer .— (i No, sir. I don’t know who sent for him ; he was there.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst. — Question.—“ Who was that Sheriff’s 
officer ?” 

Answer. — u Upon my honor, 1 can’t tell. I don’t know his name. I 
didn’t hear it. He was there in the room pretty much the whole time. 
He attended there as Sheriff.” 

Question. —“ Can you tell whether he touched any of the tickets?” 

Answer .— <£ Not that I know of.” 

Question. —“ Did you see him come near the tickets ?” 

Answer .— u He was at the head of the table, I believe, when the judge 
was putting them in.” 

Question. — u Whereabouts in the room was the Sheriff’s officer ?” 

Answer. —“ He was sitting there, over by the desk in one corner of the 
room, at the Commissioner’s desk; he sat there and looked at us counting 
before the judge counted them; he sat there at that end of the table.” 

Questian. —“ While the tickets were being counted off did the deputy 
sheriff touch them ?” 

Answer .—“ Not that I know off. I don’t think he did.” 

Question. —“ Could he have done it without your seeing it ?” 

Answer. —“ He might, as my attention was called away at different 
times. He was at the same end of the table as Dr. Manson and I were.” 

Question. —“ Could you not have seen if he had put his hands among 
the tickets?” 

Answer. —“ While I was looking that way, I might have seen it. I 
saw nothing of the kind. In reading or writing, I have to wear glasses, 
but usually I can see everything that is going on like all the rest. There 
was no difficulty in my seeing all that was going on that day.” 

Question .—“ Did you observe whether the Assessor did or did not write 
any names on his list ?” 

Answer .•—“ I did not. I did not see him write down a name.” 

Question. —“ Is the office of District Attorney the only one that is tallied 

by hundreds ? 



188 


Answer. —“ As I said before, they undertook it in that way, by setting 
it down by tens, and they allowed it would take too long a time.” 

Mr. Hirst. — a Mr. Carpenter’s is by hundreds, and the County Auditor’s? 
and the County Commissioner’s, and the Amendment.” 

Witness. —“ Yes, sir. I heard them say it would take so long to mark 
them by tens, and they would set them down in a shorter way.” 

Question. — " Did that remark as to taking them so long, apply to those 
that had the small votes?” 

Answer. —“ Not that I know of. They undertook it in the first place.” 

Question. — u Can you remember whether other officers were on the 
same ticket with the District Attorney ?” 

Answer. —“ Upon my honor I could not say.” 

Question. —“ Was the observation as to Mr. Reed’s pile being so small, 
made as soon as it was on the table ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Did the number he received correspond with the observa¬ 
tion you made!” 

Answer. —“ I believe so, as near as I could judge. I did not intend to 
sit as inspector there that day, and I had my tools in my hand and was 
going to work, when Mr. Weatherby met me,—him, and I think David 
Wagner both met me, and said, u they want you up there.” 

Question. —“ Are they both Whigs ?” 

Answer. —“ I believe they are. I acted at the request of these two 
gentlemen. I met them in the street.” 

Question .—“ We re they both of the Whig party?” 

Answer. —“I didn’t know but the one. I thought the other belonged 
to my own party, and Weatherby I knew was opposite. They said, <£ we 
cannot have justice done without you,” and I said “ if I can do anything 
for you, I will go.” Weatherby said that, and the other one also. To 
the best of my knowledge, I did justice according to my oath.” 

Mr. Hirst. — c< You said you signed every paper they handed to you. 
Did you sign any of these papers without examining them ?” 

Answer. —“ I didn’t read them over. They passed them over to me.” 

Question. —“ Did you observe the figures ?” 

Answer. —“ I did at that time—I looked at them, but to hold them in 
my memory, I could not say. That is my signature on that paper.” 

Question. —“ Did you sign any of these certificates without seeing that 
the figures were right ?” 

Answer —“ Yes, I looked at the figures at the time.” 

Question. —“ Did you look at them sufficiently to convince you they 
were correct?” 

Answer. —“ I could not say I did. I simply looked at them and put 

them in. I looked at them to see that the votes were carried out and 
numbered.” 



189 


Simon M. Gaul , sworn. —“I was assessor of both precincts of the Dis¬ 
trict of Penn at the last election. I went to the polls in the Eastern 
precinct in the morning before they were opened, and I was there from 
the opening to the closing. I remained there all the time. 1 was not out of 
it. After the polls closed, I staid till the tickets were counted off, and 
the boxes sealed up and taken over to the alderman’s. I cannot tell 
exactly what time it was ; it must have been about two or three o’clock in 
the morning. While the polls were open, Mr. Bardeer received the 
tickets from the voteis, and he deposited them in the boxes as usual.” 

Question .—“ How much of the day were you away from the room ?” 

Answer .—“ I was out at different times through the day • not a great 
while at any one time.” 

Question. —“ How much at any one period ?” 

Answer .—“ I can’t tell; sometimes half an hour ; when I went out the 
rest of the officers were all in the room, and I found when I returned the 
officers of the election there, generally. I can’t tell which was the first 
box counted after the polls closed. I saw them set the boxes up when 
the polls were closed, up alongside of each other, against the win¬ 
dow where the tickets were taken in, and after they took something to 
eat, they commenced counting off. I was in the room from the time the 
election closed, till they commenced counting off.” 

Question. —“ From the time the election closed till they began to count 
off, were the boxes interfered with ?” 

Answer. —“Not that I saw.” 

Question. “ Did they remain piled up one on top of another till they 
began to count ?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir; they took one box after another off the pile to 
count off.” 

Question. —“Who was the Sheriff’s officer spoken of who was there?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t tell his name exactly; I know him well when I see 
him. He was one of the Sheriff’s officers who came there.” 

Question. —-“Were the tickets you saw Mr. Bardeer deposit in the 
boxes kept there, as received, till they were counted?” 

Answer. —“ Kept till counted. None of them taken out. I feel certain 
of that.” 

Question. —“From the time the boxes were opened till the counting 
was finished, were any of the tickets taken away or interfered with ?” 

Answer. —“ I see nothing of the kind.” 

Question .—“ Could it have been done without your seeing it ?” 

Answer. —“ I suppose it might have been done, but I don’t think there 
was anybody there who would do it.” 

Question. —“ How were they counted off—who did it ?” 

Answer. — “ The officers of the election counted them as usual. We 
first took them out and unfolded them. The officers unfolded them ;— 
Mr. Manson, and I think Bardeer and Trimble.” 


190 


Question .—From the time they began to count off this ticket till they 
finished it, did any of them leave the room or go away'?” 

Answer .— u I don’t think they did. I was not sitting by the table all 
the time. I was sitting back in a chair. I did’nt pay particular attention 
to all that was going on.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell .— u Question. —“ While you were 
all day at the Eastern precinct of Penn, who was playing Assessor at the 
West precinct.” 

Answer .—“ There was none there to play.” 

Question. —“ Did you keep your Assessor’s book at the Eastern pre¬ 
cinct ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You kept it during the day ?” 

Answer. —“ No, not the entire day. I was there whenever the inspec¬ 
tors called for me. I was in and out of the room; they would send the 
officer for me sometimes. Gilmore would sometimes tell me they wanted 
me inside, when a voter came up, and his name was not on the list, and 
they asked me in reference to it.” 

Question. — u Did you put the name down 1” 

Answer .—“ I don’t know if I did. I might have done it. I can’t tell 
whether I wrote a single man’s name down that day. I didn’t pay par¬ 
ticular attention to that part of it. Whenever I was called upon I paid 
all the attention to it that was required. My attention may have been 
required to write down a man’s name. I did not vouch for anybody.” 

Question .— u What were you doing there 1” 

Answer .—“ I was the Assessor, and was on the ground whenever I was 
wanted.” 

Question .—“ What were you wanted fori 

Answer .—“ To see if a man’s name was on the list, if there was dispute 
about it, and the inspectors could not find it. Dr. Manson had my list.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ You remained in the room till after the tickets were 
counted.” 

Answer .—“ I hadn’t anything to do with that. I was in the room all 
the time. I don’t think I left the room from the time the votes were polled 
till the boxes were taken to a magistrate. I am not positive of that. If 
I did go out, I did’nt go more than outside and in again. I don’t recollect 
going out.” 

Question .—“You remained in that room from ten till four in the morning, 
what did you do ?” 

Answer .—“ Sometimes sitting down and sometimes walking about. I 
had nothing to do. I staid there to keep company with the rest. I don’t 
know if my Assessor’s list was put in the box. I only had one there. I 
have never seen it since. I saw them seal the box.” 

Question. —“ Did you mark a £ v* by any man’s name 1” 

Answer .—“ I may have. I recollect some.” 

Question. —“Did you mark all the voters as they came up?” 



191 


Answer. —“ No, sir. I don’t know that it is the Assessor’s duty to do 
that. It belongs to the inspector. I think Dr. Manson did write down 
names in my book.” 

Question. —•“ W hen the polls closed, and the inspectors and judge counted 
the votes, did you stand there and see it done.” 

Anewer. —“ Part of the time I did and part not.” 

Question. —“ Did you know of the result of the election of any of the 
officers till the whole election was closed V 9 

Answer. —“No, sir. I am sure of that. I didn’t know the result of 
the county ticket till all were counted off. After all the tickets were 
counted they called off what each got. Till the whole five were counted 
off I didn’t know the result of any one.” 

Question .—“Did you hear the conversation between the officers there?” 

Answer. —“ There was a great deal going on, but I didn’t pay attention 
to it. I didn’t hear Mr. Bardeer remark that Mr. Reed had not run as well 
as he expected, nor the answer to it, for I didn’t hear the question. We 
deposited the boxes at Alderman Evans’ office. I didn’t wake him up. I 
went in Tenth street, opposite, and they went over to deposit the boxes. 
I don’t know whether he was waiting to receive them. I waited for them 
till they came away, and I went home from there. I think the judge 
sealed the boxes. I saw them sealing them up and staid till they went 
out. I saw it done, but can’t say who did it.” 

Mr Campbell. —“ You staid awake all the time you were in the room?” 

Answer .—“ I can’t say that I did. I did dose a little on the chair. I 
don’t know what time it was. I didn’t see anybody else at it. I voted. 
I think it was inside—me and Mr. Binder together. I am not certain 
about that. Something was said about it, and some of the officers went 
out. I think Bardeer went out. I don’t know who went with him. I 
don’t recollect anybody going out with him. I didn’t pay much atten¬ 
tion to it. I don’t know the first or last ticket counted off. I can’t re¬ 
collect anything about it.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst. — Question. —“ You said you didn’t hear 
the result till all the tickets were counted off; all what tickets ?” 

Answer.—“ The whole vote—for all the officers that were voted for. 
I don’t recollect hearing anything before that.” 

Question. —“ Did you see the clerks tallying ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“Did you see them tallying as the Judge was counting and 
twisting ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir , as fast as they were twisted up, the clerks tal¬ 
lied them down. I don’t think I inquired what it was as each was finished. 
I might, but I don’t recollect it.” 

Question. —“Did the clerks finish each box before they began another.” 

Answer. —“ That X can’t tell whether they did or not. I think they 
did.” 


192 


George W. Manson, sworn. — a I was an officer at the last election 
in the Eastern Precinct of the District of Penn. I was Inspector. I 
can’t exactly say the time the polls opened. They closed at ten. Mr. 
Bardeer received the votes from the voters during the day, and as he re¬ 
ceived them, he put them in the ballot boxes. I was absent once or twice 
during the day, for a very few minutes indeed. I was out of the house 
for a very short space of time. When I went away, I left the rest of the 
officers there.” 

Question. —“ Was any more than one officer out at the same time during 
the day V 9 

Answer. —“ Not that I know of.” 

Question. — u Who else of the officers was out of the room during the 
day V’ 

Answer. — u There might have been one or two out, just to step into an 
adjoining room. No one was out for any length of time.” 

Question. —“ After the polls closed, what became of the boxes ?” 

Answer. —“ The votes were counted off.” 

Question. —■“ What was done to the boxes when the polls closed V 9 

Answer.— u Taken to Alderman Evans’ office after they were sealed 
up.” , - 

Question. —“ Can you recognise the boxes V 9 

Answer .—“ I would not like to swear positively as to them.” 

Question. — c< State the process by which these votes were counted off 
for District Attorney.” 

Answer .—“ They were counted off the same as the rest—by two of us 

■—by the five officers. It was counted off carefully and accurately. When 

we opened the boxes we unfolded the tickets, and we put the full tickets, 

the Democratic, in one pile, and the Whig in another, and the scratched 

tickets we would throw bv themselves.” 

* 

• Question. — u Were the tickets that had Mr. Reed’s name on, a small 
pile?” 

Answer. — u Yes, sir. The same process was with that as the others.” 

Question .—“ Who was the sheriff’s officer there V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect his name.” 

Question. —“ Were the tickets, as counted, tallied by the clerks ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, and each one was finished and counted off and tallied 
before another was taken.” 

Cross-examined, by Mr. Campbell. — Question. —“ Look at that assess¬ 
ment list, are those additional names in your hand-writing V 9 

Answer. —“ They are. I have been an officer of election some three 
or four times before.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“I find written here, <a very careful man had this.’” 


193 


T " So ™ e P«son, I suppose a child had had it, and that is why 

I put that in pencil. That book was there on election day. I can’t sav 
who brought it. This scratch had.occurred before I received it.” y 

Mr. Campbell ,—“You didn’t write down the residences of these ad- 
ditionai voters ?” 


Witness. “ Sometimes they voted so fast that we could not look over 
these lists and write the names down afterwards, it takes a good deal of 
time, borne names I could not get down.” 

. William, Deal, recalled.—Mr. Hirst —“ Point out the box you brought 
into Court V 9 ° 

Answer.—“ I could not distinguish one from the other. I had to have 
the Alderman to do that.” 

Question .—“ Could you identify the one?” 

Answer .—“ If it has my seal on it I can.” 

Mr.Campbell .— u When you received these boxes of Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, did you keep them carefully ever since V 9 

Answer. —“ I have, sir.” 

Question. —“ Were they opened since in your custody till opened in 
Court?” 

Answer .—“ By no one. I brought one of them here to Court.” 

Question. —“You speak positively and certainly that they have not 
been opened V 9 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, positively.” 


George Mooney , sworn. — Question. —“ Do you know whether Mr. 
Mullegrew voted at the last election in Second Ward, Moyamensing?” 

Answer. —do,—I vouched for him.” 


Question. —“ Was it Samuel Mullegrew?” 

Answer. —“ That is the name he goes by. He voted a few minutes 
before ten o’clock at night.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Mullegrew’s vote is No. 1222.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell .—“ Question .— <( When did you see 
Mullegrew last ?” 

Answer. —“ Not since that night. He was a tailor.” 

Question. —“ Where did he reside.” 

Answer .—“ I vouched for his citizenship, not for his residence, another 
man with him vouched for his residence, a man that he lived with he said. 
I don’t know his name ; he certainly mentioned it. He said he resided in 
Bedford street, below Eighth. I was present when he vouched for his 
residence. I don’t know his name now. I might have known it then and 
forgotten it since. I was sworn I think by Mr. Donnelly, either him or 
McMullen. A man on the left hand of me challenged him on the right 
of citizenship, to show his papers. I can’t give his name, I didn’t know 
him. I told him at the time I didn’t think he was a voter or resident of 
the Ward, and I did’nt think he had a right to challenge him.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You knew him then ?” 

25 






194 


Answer. —“ No. sir, but I was pretty well acquainted with the active 
politicians on the side he was challenging for. I have seen the man since 5 
not in this court room, but outside.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Describe him.” 

Witness. — u He is not as tall as you, he has a short beard like what I 
wear, he is a man not as well dressed as you, not very well dressed. I 
could not tell whether he had a hat or a cap on.” 

Question. —“ Is that he V 9 [Mr. Matthieu.] 

Answer. — £< No, sir.” 

Qustion. —“ Was he thin or fat ?” 

Jlnswer. —“ Neither. I don’t know his business. I saw him outside 
here, on the pavement, since this case has been going on. I can’t tell 
exactly when. I think he was with Mr. Perkins, if I am not mistaken. 
I don’t know Mr. Grimshaw by name, I might know him if I saw him.” 

Question. —“ Was this man’s beard light or dark?” 

Witness. —“It was rather darker than mine ; it was rather brownish. 
The last time I.saw him was two or three weeks ago, since this case com¬ 
menced. I don’t know where he resides. I did not speak to him when I 
saw him here.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ He challenged this man and you said you doubted his 
right to challenge.” 

Witness. — <c I asked what right he had to challenge, and he said he had 
as good a right as any other man. I said I didn’t believe he was a resident 
of the ward, and he made a retort. I vouched for Mullegrew’s voting in 
1844, in New York. I had seen his papers. I was sworn.” 

Question. —“ Did you swear that in ’44 he voted on his*papers in New 
York, and that you saw him there ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. He was a shop mate and boarded at the same 
house with me in New York.” 

Question. —“ Who was examined after you ?” 

Answer. —“ The person examined after me was a man who vouched for 
his residence. I don’t know whether he said he resided with him or in 
the house with him. I think he said it was in Bedford street, below 
Eighth or Seventh. I could not be positive which. Mullegrew was a 
tailor in New York in ’44. That is my business.” 

Question —“ How long had you seen him before the election ?” 

Answer. —“ Three or four months, every week, before the election. I 
have not seen him since. I heve not lived in the neighborhood of where 
he said he lived since then. Before that I lived in Ninth street, below 
South. I don’t live there now. I left, the 21st of last month will be 
three months. It was the 21st of November. I did not see Mulleorew 
from the election till then. I have looked for him since and have °been 
to several houses in Bedford street for him. I went there the beginning 
of last week. I didn’t find him. I didn’t look for anybody else ^besides 
him. His first name was Samuel. He hadn’t relations here that I know 



195 


of. He told me in New York that he had a sister married here. I don’t 
know what her name was.” 

Question .—“ Who else was beside you, when he voted'?” 

Witness .—“ There was a large crowd—twenty alongside of me. I could 
not tell any one in particular. There was Mr. McMename, Mr. Kerley, 
and Mr. Coyle. I don’t say that they saw him vote, but I saw them 
there when I came from the window. I hadn’t been to the window longer 
than to bring this man up to vote. I went in the early part of the even¬ 
ing to find him. I went to Mooney’s, at the corner of Eighth and South, 
where he is in the habit of going sometimes. I voted myself in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing; it was before eight o’clock. I looked on the list, 
and my name is either not down at all, or is down wrong, one or the 

other.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“The name nearest to it is George Manly, 962.” 


Question .—“Did you know McMullen'?” 

Answer.—“ I knew him when I saw him, and he knew me by sight. 

I never spoke to Donnelly till the night of the election. I did know him 
by sight before. I knew Megarey before, and I presume he knew me. 

I have spoken to him before the election. Mr. Mullegrew is an older 
man than me—he looks older—he is about thirty-five, I should suppose. 

Mr. Campbell.— u After you saw him in New York in ’44, when did 
you next see him V* 

Answer.—“ Up in Bucks county, about two years afterwards. The 
next was in the beginning of last summer. I don’t know in whose employ 
he was. I saw him at the corner of Eighth and South. 

Question.— i6 When you searched for him, did you find the place he 
lived at ?” 

Answer .—“I did not. I searched for him to see if I could not bring 
him up to swear to his voting. That was last Monday week. I have 
looked 1 since that, and have inquired from two or three men that X have 
seen him in company with. I don’t know the name of anybody I inquired 
of I could give the names of twenty I have asked about Inm, but no o 
these companions, though I have drank with them I don’t know any 
other man of the name of Mullegrew but that one. I know a Mulledew. 

Question .—'“ You were called to swear to his papers'!” 

Answer—“ He said he had lost them, and I was called to swear in con- 
senuence of that. I had gone for him in the early part of the evening. 
I didn’t find him at all. I don’t know exactly where he lived. I knew a 
rendezvous where he went to—at Mooney’s. That is the only place I 
knew I saw him coming round the corner of Eighth street with these 
n and I went to him and asked him if he had a ticket, and he had, 
fnd i askedTo look at it, and I said that was right I went with him to 
the window, and he was challenged. I vouched for him as a voter, and 
the other man vouched for him as residing in the house with him. I have 
never seen the ma" who vouched for him since. I.could .not siee h,m in 
Bedford street. I went to Jim Main’s house, and I asked Capt. Walker. 
Main I thought knew some of these fellows that loaf around there. u - 
fcvrew was a man of rather dissipated habits of late-the last year or wm 
X could find nothing of him. One of these men he is in the habit ot 


196 


being with, said he had seen him about a month from that time. I didn’t 
ask his name. I don’t know whether I could find him now or not. He 
did not tell me where he saw him. I did not ask where he saw him. I 
supposed it was in the city of Philadelphia. I asked if he had seen him, 
and he said he had about a month ago. He said he supposed he had left 
the city. I don’t know who first told me that. I saw him in the neigh¬ 
borhood of Eighth and Bedford. Nobody but us two were present. It 
was in the street. 

Question.-— •“ You met him by accident a month ago V 9 

Answer. —“ No. The first time I commenced to hunt him, say last 
Monday two weeks, and he said, “ a month before that he had seen him, 
and he was particular to ask what I wanted of him, and I would not tell 
him. I didn’t ask where he had seen him. This man didn’t look as if he 
had heen out of the city. He didn’t look as if he had ever been out of 
Philadelphia by his appearance. I asked if he knew where he was ; he 
said he didn’t know, but he had seen him about a month ago. I didn’t 
ask where.” 

Question. —“ Who asked you to make the search V 9 

Answer. —“ I did it myself two weeks ago. I was told by several people 
to look out for him. Dubassee was one. The first time I did it of my own 
accord. I found I was subpoenaed, and I thought if I could bring the man 
I would not be called upon to appear. It didn’t exactly suit me to be 
running here two or three weeks. I looked then, and two or three parts 
of afternoons since. I asked Mr. Cullen if he knew him. I have asked 
Dubassee. I have asked a hundred for him. I was present when the man 
swore to his residence.” 

Question. —“ Did you go into the house he had sworn he resided in V> 

Answer. —“ No, for I did’nt recollect whether it was below Eighth or 
Seventh street, and I went to see in both places. I thought perhaps I had 
made a mistake.” 

Question. —“ Then you went to Bedford street, below Seventh. 

Answer. —■“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Did you happen to know that that was out of the Second 
Ward V 9 

Answer. — u I did not.” 

Question. —“Where did he swear the residence was?” 

Answer. —“ I thought it was Bedford street, below Eighth, and when I 
found it was not there, I looked below Seventh.” 

Question. —“ Who did you inquire of in Bedford street, below Eighth?” 

Answer —“ I could not tell the persons. I am not acquainted with the 
people there by name.” 

Question. —■« Did you meet the man who testified to his residence ?” 

Answer. —“ I did not. I think I would know him if I saw him. I 
won’t swear to him positively.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst. — Witness. —“ I lived in the Ward, at the 
last election, from the 25th of June till the Friday preceding the elec- 




197 


tion. I went to Baltimore, and on the morning preceding I went to Phil¬ 
adelphia.” 

Alderman Fletcher , recalled .— Question. — 44 Can you say whether this 
is the box you gave to Sheriff Deal, positively ?” 

Answer .—“I examined the seal when I went with the Sheriff, and I 
was pretty well satisfied it was my seal. It had part of my name on it, 
part of Moyamensing and Ward; no other letters on it.” 

Question. — 44 If there are other letters on this, it cannot be your seal, 

. can it ?” 

Answer. — “I can’t say now, whether the Sheriff put his seal on that 
before I did. That is the only seal on this box which looks like it.” 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 There are upon this the letters t , i and c; I think it has 
had on it 4 City and Countv of Philadelphia,’ and I hope if Alderman 
Fletcher goes again and examines, he may find the box that has the 
papers in.” 

Witness. — 44 I received five boxes from the election officers—one I de¬ 
livered to the Sheriff, and I believe this is the box. The boxes produced 
in Court, were those delivered to me by the officers, and they were in the 
identical condition in which they were when delivered. To the best of 
my knowledge, that is the same box I delivered to the Sheriff—the others 
were the boxes, and in the same condition as when I received them.” 

Question. — 44 You believe this box is one of the five 

Witness .— 44 If that is the box brought in by the sheriff and myself, 
from the examination I gave it before I left the sheriff’s house, I believe 
it is the box I gave to him. I can only identify it by the seal. I had 
some difficulty in making it out there. The seal I put on it had a portion 
of my name and part of 4 Moyamensing’ on it. I distinguished it at the 
time I was with the sheriff, and I think Mr. Yanhook identified it at the 
same time.” 

Judge Kelley .— 44 When the seal had been put on by the sheriff, you 
marked your pencil on it, and when you came to find it again } r ou found 
the letters corresponding with the pencil 

Witness. — 44 Yes, sir. I can’t say whether the sheriff put his seal on 
the hot wax before I put mine on or not.” 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 1 suppose you would have no objection to make another 
examination with the sheriff ?” 

Answer .— 44 None at all.” 

Question. — 44 Where were these five boxes kept ?” 

Answer. — 44 In the third story of my house, back room, in my boy’s 
sleeping apartment. My office is in Shippen street, below Eighth, some 
three or four squares from my residence. I am away from my house prin¬ 
cipally.” 

Question .— 44 During the day of the election, what name was on the 
tickets you distributed for District Attorney 

Answer. — 44 Horn R. Kneass.” 

Cross-examined by Mr Campbell. — Question.— 44 Where in the room did 
you keep these boxes ?” 




198 


Answer. —“ In the closet. I don’t think it was locked. Mj oldest 
daughter carried them and put them there. My boys are my sons—one is 
18, and the other about 12 years old.” 

Question. —“When you examined these boxes to bring them to the 
Court or deliver to the Sheriff, had they been opened or altered in the 
slightest degree ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“Do you speak positively and.unequivocally as to that?” 

Answer .—“Yes, sir. There had been no change in the least.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst. — Question. —“ Were any seals put upon 
them by yourself when you received them ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. My daughter took them up stairs, and I told her 
that no one was to have access to them. They were placed in the closet. 
The closet was used for books. These were put down on the floor.” 

Question .— “Joshua Fletcher is your brother, is he not?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, he is.” 

Dennis Coughlin , sworn. — Question. —“ Were you one of the Sheriff’s 
officers the day of the election in Second Ward, Moyamensing ?” 

Answer. —“ I was not. I was one of the watchmen in Moyamensing. 
I was on the ground from nine till ten o’clock. I might be five minutes 
off when I went to get my badge and rattle. I was not more than ten 
minutes away. I came away from the Hall at half-past nine.” 

Question. —“State the condition of the polls.” 

Answer. —“ I think, in my estimation, within twenty-five minutes or 
thereabouts to ten o’clock, that there was in the neighborhood of three 
hundred citizens at the polls, at Eighth and Catharine. They were in 
single file half way across the street, coming up to vote. The crowd con¬ 
tinued till the polls were closed, and after the polls were closed gentlemen 
cursing the officers because they would not take their votes in. I knew 
persons named Gillis in that ward. I knew them before the election, 
but they have moved from there since. I think the father’s name is the 
same as the son’s, who was shot about a year ago. I can’t be positive. I 
know the other son’s name is Anglis Gillis. They lived in Stewart street, 
between Catharine and Fitzwater, and between Eighth and Ninth. I can’t 
say whether they voted on the election day. The day previous to the 
election— 

Mr. Campbell. —“What is this to prove?” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ I want to show that both of them promised to vote the 
Democratic ticket the day before.” 

Objected to by Mr. Campbell. 

Judge King.—“ It would be worth nothing. The more I see of the 
case, the more am I satisfied that we should stick to the strict rule of evi¬ 
dence.” 

Mr. Tyler. —“ You had better have adopted that rule before the defence 
was opened.” 



199 


Judge Kelley. — (c I don’t sec that there is a departure from any rule 
that has governed the Court in any stage of this proceeding.” 

Judge King. —“Do you propose to prove that one of the parties who 
swore he voted for Mr. Reed, stated to the witness the day before, he 
would vote for Mr. Kneass ?” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Judge King. —“ You do this to impeach his credibility ?” 

Mr. Hirst. — u Yes, sir.” 

Judge King .— t( I think it may be admitted to test the credibility of the 
former witness.” 

Judge Kelley. — u I can’t see how it can have any possible be^ing upon 
the question, unless a man shall not change his mind within twenty-four 
hours. We have proven before us, several instances of men changing their 
tickets on the election ground under persuasion. It would not change his 
character for credibility, it would not prove he had voted, it would have 
no effect upon my mind in any way. If it is to be met by counter testi¬ 
mony, it will be by showing that he was a man of such determined traits 
of mind, that nothing but a clap of thunder would change his opinion. I 
am opposed to its admission because it is contrary to all the rules of evi¬ 
dence.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ State what Robert Gillis said—in whose favor he was, 
and for whom he was going to vote ?” 

Witness. — ic The day previous to the election I went to him. His house 
was a half square from my watch-box, and I asked him if he would vote 
the whole Democratic ticket, and he said he would. Anglis Gillis, his 
son, I asked, and he said, ‘ If I had my tax receipt, I would do the same.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I am a watchman. In October, I light my lamps 
on the edge of dark. I think it is a little after five o’clock. Sometimes 
I commence at five, and sometimes at half past five. I have no idea at 
what time the sun goes down in October.” 

Re-examined. — “ Upon the night previous to the election, there was 
not a Whig’s or Democrat’s house in the Ward that I did not put a ticket 
in with Kneass’s name on it.” 

Cross-examined. —“ I did that the night before the election, while I was 
on my beat, and going rounds, hallowing my hour. I can’t say what be¬ 
came of them.” 

Question. —“ Give the names of the gentlemen that were cursing when 
the polls closed.” 

Answer. —“ I could not do it. At the time the polls were closed they 
were cursing the officers because they would not take their votes. As an 
officer, I was sworn to do my duty, and 1 could not tell who was there.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You were discharging your duty when you were 
putting these tickets under the doors the night before'?” 

Witness. —“ I took that much liberty on myself, 1 did not recognise 
myself misdoing my duty when I did that.” 


200 


Re-examined .— Question. —“ Did putting these tickets under the doors 
interfere with the performance ot your duty as a watchman?’ 

Answer .—“ No sir, not at all. 

James D. Campbell , affirmed .—“I was on the ground at the last elec¬ 
tion, in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at different parts of the day, from 
a little after nine o’clock ; and after the polls closed I was present.” 

Question. —“ During what hours of the day and night were the greatest 
numbers of votes polled in proportion ?” 

Answer. —“ They appeared to vote very freely between a little after 
nine and ten, more so than any other part of the day I was there. There 
were a great many about the polls. I am a son of Alderman Campbell, of 
that Wajd.” 

William W. Binder , sworn. — tC I reside in South Penn. I was a clerk 
at the last General Election in the Eastern Precinct of the District of Penn. 
I was appointed by Samuel Bardeer. The election opened a little after 
nine, and closed at ten. I was there all day, with the exception of about 
five minutes. While I was away the other officers—the two Inspectors, 
the other Clerk, and the Judge, were in the room. As the tickets were 
handed in at the window during the day, they were put on the box by the 
Inspector, Samuel Bardeer, and in the presence of the others, they were 
put into the box. I saw that myself. When the polls were closed, the 
boxes in which these votes had been deposited were all closed up.” 

Question. —“ Was the window fastened ?” 

Answer. —“ It was fastened. The shutters were shut on the outside and 
bolted.” 

Question. —“ During the day, until the poll was closed, was there access 
by any person to these boxes ?” 

Answer. —There was no access to the boxes.” 

Question. —“ Could anybody have changed the votes in them?’ 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ After the election closed, the boxes were piled against 
the window, what was done then ?’ 

Answer. —“They were taken down, one at a time,and the tickets were 
taken out of the boxes by the Inspector, and called off and tallied by the 
clerks. I was present at the counting. That counting was correct, with 
one or two exceptions. On the Assembly ticket our tally list varied one 
or two. I think it was about three o’clock in the morning when we 
finished counting off. The boxes were sealed up and delivered to the 
Alderman. The votes that we counted will be found in the boxes as we 
counted them—in the return boxes. We put the tickets all in one box. 

I was present when they were sealed and delivered.” 

Question .—“From the time that poll was closed till the tickets were 
counted off on which Mr. Kneass’s and Mr. Reed’s names were, were you 
out of the room?’ 

Answer. —“ No, sir. I was only out that five minutes ; only once 
during the day. I was present during the entire time the counting was 
going on.” 


201 


Cross-examined .—“ I voted from the outside, by myself. I believe 
none of the rest of the officers were out with me. We went out one at a 
time. I think I went out the third one. I left that room the next day 
at, I think, about 3 o’clock. With the exception of five minutes, I was 
constantly there, from the opening to the closing of the polls.” 

Question .—“ How were the polls managed V 9 

Answer.—.“We took the tickets, opened them, tallied them and then 
they were laid in piles often and counted off by the judge.” 

Question .—“ Did you tally them altogether by tens'?” 

Answer .— “ I think we did.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ You began and tallied by hundreds V 9 

Witness. —“ They were counted off in tens, and ten put in a pile and 
called one hundred.” 

Question .—“ Did you commence or conclude by putting them in hun¬ 
dreds V 9 

Answer .—“ We concluded in that way.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ Look at the list and see if you didn’t begin in that 
way V 9 

Witness .—“ We didn’t begin with the District Attorney list.” 

Question .— “ Did you begin that in tens ?” 

Answer .—“ I am not certain of it. We began in hundreds. It was 
counted off in hundreds and then given to us by the judge. This is my 
original tally list. I had nothing to do with the counting. I had as much 
as I could attend to, to keep tally. 

Question .— “ Did you sign the papers V 9 

Answer .—“I did.” 

Question .—“ All of them V 9 

Answer .—“ Yes, I believe I signed all that were handed to me to sign. 
I believe that window list is not signed.” 

Re-examined. — Question .—“ Who was the door keeper V 9 

Answer .—“I can’t recollect his name, but I think it was one of the 
officers of the District. I don’t know who the Sheriff’s officer was. He 
was a very tall man.” 

Question .—“ Was it Mr. Stout V 9 

Answer. —“ I can’t recollect his name. I don’t know that I heard it. 
There were two there one part of the day.” 

John K. Hineman, sworn.—“ I was an officer of the election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. The poll opened between nine 
and ten, and closed precisely at ten. I was appointed clerk by Dr. 
Manson.” 

Question .—“ During the day who received the tickets from the voters'?” 

Answer .—“Dr. Manson, generally.” 

Question .—“Are you certain which received it?” 

26 


202 


Answer. — ££ Both of them received some. As the tickets were received 
they were put iu the boxes and they were kept there safely, to the best of 
my knowledge till counted. From the opening to the closing of the poll, 
I was absent some three or four times, about five minutes each time. 
When I left the room I left all (he officers behind me. When I returned 
each time I found the officers in the room, and sometimes two of the 
Sheriff’s officers, and sometimes one. One of the Sheriff’s officers they 
called Dr. Rutter and the other was Mr. Berrill. He was a young man. I 
don’t think there was at any one time, two officers away from the room 
during the day. I voted outside of the house.” 

Question. —“ Did you go out with the other officers or each separately?’ 5 

Answer. — ££ I don’t recollect. I recollect going out myself. My 
reason for it was that I thought it was better to vote outside, to stop all 
contested elections in Penn District—there had been so much of it.” 

Question .— ££ Did all the officers vote outside ?” 

Answer. — ££ I can’t say. I know I did.” 

Question. — ££ Till the polls were closed, was there anybody there that 
could have access to the tickets to take them away or change them?” 

Answer. — t£ Not without our seeing it.” 

Question. —“ After the close of the election, what was done ?” 

Answer. — ££ We commenced counting the tickets.” 

Question .— ££ What was done with the boxes as soon as the polls closed?” 

Answer .—“ They sat there as they were all day.” 

Question. —“ Were the}' opened till they were counted off?” 

Answer. — ££ Yes, sir, as they were counted off.” 

Question .— ££ Were they opened before that?” 

Answer. — ££ We just left them standing as they were. I don’t recol¬ 
lect about them being open or closed. I paid attention to my tally list 
and nothing else. I don’t recollect whether the lid was closed or not! 
The two inspectors counted the tickets, and handed them to the judge* 
and they were put in bundles of ten. As the judge announced the tens* 
we tallied them.” ’ 

Question. — ££ Was one box finished before the other began?” 

Answer .— ££ I think it was. Myself and a young man named Binder 
the other clerk, kept tally.” 5 

Question. — ££ Did you keep tally carefully as they called off the names?” 

Answer .— ££ Correct as possible, sir.” 

Question. ££ From the close of the polls till you counted off and tallied 
the District Attorney ticket, were you away, out of the room?” 

Answer .— ££ No, sir.” 

Question. ££ During that time were any other of the officers out of the 
room ?” 

Answer.—“ Not to my recollection. I don’t think there was. The 


203 


Sheriff’s officers sat by the stove, some three or four feet from the table, 
so that they didn’t interfere with the boxes or tickets.” 

Question. —“ What were they there for ?” 

Answer.—" That I can’t tell. They were there as Sheriff’s officers, 
and had badges on.” 

Question. —“ You spoke of anticipating a contested election, did you 
anticipate disturbances V 9 

Answer.—" I did not anticipate a contested election, bu “ 1 '^ a ^ b f ®“ 
so much of it, that I didn’t want any more, as I had been brought betoi 
the Court several times. It was before an Alderman, I think. It was an 
Examiner It was in the case of John Robbins, the Congressman, in 
which everything turned out right. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Brown.—Question.—“ How often were you 

Answer.—" Three or four times. I left there last at about eight o’clock 
in the evening.” 

Question.—" Did any of you dine that day V’ 

Answer .— u Yes, sir.” 

Question.—" How did you manage it then V 9 

Answer.-" The victuals were inside of the room,and we took itinour 
fists, and when there was no voting we would take a bite. 

Question.—" Did you all go off at once to take a bite ?” 

Answer. _•“ Sometimes one and sometimes another. 

Question.—" What were the Sheriff’s officers doing at the stove 1” 
a « QUfin cr there The stove was there all the year round I 

beifeve i don’t renfember whether there was fire in the stove or not 
Question. —“ Did you take the votes down in tens on your a y is • 

Answer. —■“ I believe so.” # , 

Question.-" Have you been inhere during the examination of the 

Cle ' ! Cl ” No sir I W a S in here a few minutes when Mr. Bardeer 

was cross-examined. I don’t recollect that I tallied any in hundreds. 

Question.—" Did you sign all the papers 1” 

Answer. — " I think so, sir.” 

Question.—" How many did you sign?” 

Answer.—" All that were necessary.” 

Question.—" Did you sign all that were there 1” 

Answer. —“ I did to the best of my knowledge.” 

Question.—" Did you sign the window list V’ 

Answer.-" I signed the list of voters.” „ 

Mr. Brown.—" Look at that and show me where your signature is. 

Answer.—" I don’t see any signatures there at all.” 


204 


Mr. Brown .—“ Look at the tally list and show us your signature 
there ?” 

Answer .—“ There are none there.” 

Judge King.—“ Did you commence counting immediately after the 
election was over, or did you take your supper first V 9 

Answer.-—“We commenced immediately, on the spot.” 

Question .—“ Didn’t you stop for supper V 9 

Answer. —“No, we didn’t stop for three minutes—some took a piece of 
bread and butter.” 

Question .—“ Did you pile the boxes on the window V 9 

Answer .—“We didn’t scatter the boxes, we left them on the table. 
I don’t think we did pile them on the window ledge. I don’t think we 
altered them a bit. I did not.” 

Re-examined. — Question .—“ Are you certain whether the boxes were 
piled up against the window or not V 9 

Answer .—“ I can’t recollect that they were piled up or were not. The 
refreshments to eat were in the room.” 

George R. Berrill , affirmed .—“ I am an officer of the sheriff. I was 
at the polls at the last election in the Eastern precinct of Penn, by the 
directions of the sheriff. I took Dr. Rutter with me at the request of the 
sheriff, who gave him his authority to go. I think it was about 10 o’clock 
in the morning when I went there, and I don’t think I left till the polls 
closed.” 

Question .—“ Who received the tickets from the voters 1” 

Answer .—“I didn’t pay a great deal of attention to that, but I think 
Bardeer took them while I was there. I didn’t see any of the officers 
absent.” 

Question .—“ Did you see what became of the votes, as the voters put 
them into the window 1” 

Answer .—“ From all I saw, they were put in the boxes, of course. I 
left about the time the polls closed. I was not there when they counted 
off, without they were counting off before the polls closed. I don’t know 
how that was. I considered my duties over as soon as the polls closed, 
and then I left. I didn’t feel anyways concerned about the tickets.” 

Question .—“ Did they begin to count off before the election closed?” 

Answer .—“ I don’t know anything about that.” 

Question .—“ Did you touch the boxes or tickets, or interfere with them?” 

Answer .—“ That was not a part of my business. I had nothing to do 
with the tickets, or any one who had anything to do with them.” 

Simon M. Gaul , recalled. — Question .—“ Do you know Mr. Ramson, 
examined here ?” 

Answer .—“ I know Israel T. Ramson. He voted in the Eastern pre¬ 
cinct of Penn. I gave him the ticket and saw him put it in; it was the 
full Democratic ticket. I believe Mr. Olwine paid his taxes. I under¬ 
stood he was here as a witness. I was not in Court when he was ex¬ 
amined.” 



205 


George L. Dougherty , recalled. —“ I was at the election ground in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, at about 12 o’clock at night, and there was 
quite a number of persons about the ward house, on the pavement and in 
the bar room.” 

Adjourned to meet to-morrow, at 12 o’clock, A. M. 


Friday, March 7,1851.—Court met again at 12 o’clock, A. M. 


Lewis H. Trimble , sworn. —“ I was Judge at the late election in the 
Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. The polls opened in the neigh¬ 
borhood of ten o’clock—it may be five minutes one way or the other, and 
I think we closed it may be some three or four minutes after ten,—in the 
neighborhood of ten, but it was after ten. Mr. Bardeer took the tickets 
from the voters during the election, and as he received them,he laid them 
on the boxes, and when the voter’s right to vote was ascertained, he put 
them in the boxes.” 


Question. —“ Did these tickets so placed in the boxes remain there till 
they were counted V 9 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir; to the best of my knowledge,there was no tickets 
taken out until they were counted off*.” 

Question. —“ Were you present while the election was open V 9 


Answer. —“ I was absent, I think between one and two o’clock, when 
I went over to my own precinct to vote. I belong to the West precinct.” 

Question. — (i Were you elected to your office, or appointed 


Answer. — u I was appointed. I think we were appointed by Parsons. 
I was to take the East. I was absent about three quarters of an hour it 
may be a little more, or it may be not so long.” 

Question. _“ Were you absent at any other time while the election was 

open V 9 

Answer.— u I was absent, I think, about nine o’clock in the morning. 
I had occasion to go into Mr. Davis’s, on my own business.” 


Mr. Hirst. _“ From ten o’clock when the polls opened, till ten o’clock 

when they closed, how long were you absent V 9 

Answer. _“ The polls were not opened when I went round to Davis’s. 

The occasion I have mentioned was the only time that I remember I was 
absent while the polls were open. When I left to go to vote, the rest of 
the officers were at the table to the best of my knowledge, and when I 

returned I found them there.” 


Question.— u When the polls closed, what was first done V 9 

Answer.—“ They counted the tickets off; the boxes were opened and 
the tickets sorted out. After we closed we had something to eat, and then 
the tickets were thrown out and we sorted them. Put them in different 
parcels, the scratched tickets by themselves. I think to the best of my 



206 


knowledge, the boxes were all opened at once and the tickets put out in a 
pile. I can’t be positive of it. It was the first time I ever was judge of 
an election. I don’t remember which ticket we counted off first. I was 
present in that room from the time the polls closed till the tickets were 
counted off. Mr. Binder and G. W. Manson, counted them off. The 
clerks, as they gave the number, handed over to me, and set it down on 
what they call the tally list. It was given out to the clerks after the in¬ 
spectors counted, they handed over to the clerks and gave the number out, 
and then they were handed over to me, and I counted the tickets as I put 
them in the box. To the best of my knowledge they were counted cor¬ 
rectly and carefully. The officers eat in the same room with the exception 
of Dr. Manson, who went home to his dinner, and I think to his supper.” 

Question. —“ Could the tickets received at that election have been 
changed without your knowledge, from the time the boxes were opened 
till they were counted off'?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t think they could.” 

Question. —“ Have you any doubt of it ?” 

Answer. —“ I have no doubt whatsoever. Mr. Bardeer took charge of 
the tickets till I got them V 9 

Cross-examined by Mr. Brown. — Question .—“Are you pretty certain 
that the polls opened at ten o’clock exactly '?” 

Answer. —“ It might be a little after or a little before ten.” 

Question. —“ Do you remember where you went just before the polls 
were opened'?” 

Answer —“ To Mr. Thos. S. Davis’s, about three or four doors above 
Tenth and Thompson streets. I might have been there some eight or ten 
minutes. I think the polls were not opened when I returned, to the best 
of my knowledge. I went away again somewhere about one or tw r o 
o’clock.” 

Question. —“ And you staid some three-quarters of an hour, or an hour, 
how can you say there could not have been any change during this time'?” 

Answer. —“ I say that to best of my knowledge.” 

Question —“ What knowledge can you have, while you were absent V 9 

Answer .—“ I should take it to be my confidence in the men in the 
room.” 

Question —“ But you do not say it was impossible to change these 
tickets'?” 

Answer .—“ I do not know.” 

Question .—•“ Are you certain you were not out after that'?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my recollection.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ At the time the polls were closed, the boxes were all in 
their first position on the table '?” 

Answer .—“ I think they were.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ And they remained so ?” 

Answer .—“I think so—to the best of my knowledge, there was no 
change in their position that I know of.” 


207 


Question. —“Were not the boxes during the day opened, to introduce 
the tickets with the least possible delay ?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir—not to the best of my knowledge.” 

Question. —“ In the course of the election, were the boxes not opened?” 

Answer. —“ Yes.” 

Question. —“Were they opened at the time the polls were closed; 
were they not left as when you received the last vote V 9 

Answer. —“ That I can’t say. I think the boxes were closed before 
we closed the windows. I have no knowledge on that subject.”: 

Question. —What part of the room did you go to, to take yaur snack V 9 

Answer. —“ On the north end.” 

Question. —“ Were you all there together?” 

Answer. —“All but Dr. Manson. Mr. Bardeer was left in charge of 
the boxes. There was no regular snack taken. The only meal we took 
all together was after we closed.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ That is the one I am speaking of.” 

Witness.—“ All were present but Mr. Manson.” 


Mr. Brown .—“Nobody was guarding the boxes?” 

Answer. _“ Only just what were in the room. The assessor and deputy 

sheriff were in the room at the time, but nobody else that I remember.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ As I understood you, these votes were counted off by 
Binder and Manson? 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ Then they passed through the hands of the clerks, and 
then they reached you?” 


Answer .—“ They were all sorted out and put in parcels, and after we 
had them sorted regularly, the scratched tickets were put on one side and 
then we began to count them all over again. Each candidate had his pi , 
and as they were counted they were handed over to me. 

Question.— u Did you count a single ticket yourself?” 


Answer .— £C I did assist in counting the scratched tickets.” 

Question .—“ Did you count any tickets that were in the hands of 
Manson or Binder?” 

Answer. _ <£ I don’t know that I did; we all had different piles together. 

I acted as judge.” 


Mr. Brown .— ££ You never counted the bundles ?” 

Answer .—“ I counted them as they were handed to me^and put them 
in the boxes as they were handed to me in parcels of tens. 

Question.—“ Could you say whether the distribution between the can¬ 
didates was right or not.” 


208 


Answer. —“ I can’t say what they did. I went by the tickets as they 
were handed to me.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ You went by the bundles'?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ You knew nothing more of it'?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ How many bundles had Mr. Reed'?” 

Answer. —“ I can’t tell the number he or any other candidate had, nor 
the vote any candidate had.” 

Question. —“ Had Mr. Reed three bundles'?” 

Answer. —“ He had more, I should think.” 

Question. —“ How could you make three bundles of ten out of twenty- 
six votes'?” 

Answer. —“ It could be done very easy.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ If he had more than three bundles, and each bundle 
ten'?” 

Answer. —“ I won’t be positive about that. I can’t say how many 
bundles he had.” 

Question. —“ Did you ever see the boxes after they were taken to Aid. 
Evans'?’’ 

Answer. — u No, not to my knowledge.” 

Judge King. —“ Were the boxes all emptied at one time'?” 

Answer. —“ I think they were. After we had closed and got some¬ 
thing to eat, the boxes were taken out and emptied, and they sorted the 
tickets and put them in parcels. They were all put together—all the 
tickets in all the boxes, to the best of my knowledge. I think that is the 
way it was done.” 

Re-examined by Mr. Hirst .—“ You said the lids were closed when the 
polls were closed; then you took a bite. After that they went to work; 
they took a box and emptied it on the table.” 

Witness. —“I think they were all emptied out at once, and then they 
were sorted out afterwards, I think, to the best of my knowledge. I would 
not be positive.” 

Judge King. —“When the bundles were handed to you, were they 
twisted ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. I received them from the officers, who counted 
and twisted them, and then I put them in the box. I received the bun¬ 
dles as handed to me, and I think they were all twisted, and I put them 
in a box. I didn’t count the tickets. I just counted them by tens, I 
think. I didn’t count the tickets after they were handed to me. I counted 
the bundles. 

Mr. Hirst .—“ You assisted in counting the tickets in tens'?” 

Answer. —“ I did.” 

Question. —“ Were they correctly put in tens before they were twisted”’ 



209 


Answer. —“X can’t tell that, but they were handed to me in that way.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ You say all the boxes were emptied out together, are you 
sure of that ?” 

Answer. —“ Not positive.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ You are certain that the tickets were assorted ?” 


Answer. —“ I am. They were assorted out, and each candidate had a 
pile by himself, and then they were counted.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Each candidate’s tickets were put by themselves, and the 
scratched tickets by themselves'?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. I think I assisted in doing that. As I put the 
tickets in the boxes, I think I called out how many I put in for so and so.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ They were first assorted, and the scratched tickets by 
themselves, were they counted in tens ?” 

Answer. —•“ I think they were, and the other tickets were counted in 
tens, where they would reach to tens.” 

Question .—“ These bundles of tens were arranged upon the table for 
each ticket?” 


Answer .—“Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ Did you assist in putting these bundles of ten together.” 

Answer.—“ I think I did. After the bundles of ten were laid upon the 
table they were handed to me. I think most of them were twisted before 
they were handed to me; the only tickets I twisted were those I counted 

myself.” 

Judge King.— “ How many officers were engaged in unfolding and 
counting the tickets V 9 

Answer “ I think all. I don’t remember how long a time it took to 
assort each ticket. I know it took a considerable time. The clerks, in¬ 
spectors and myself, helped count the tickets, and I think at one time, Mr. 
Galu, the Assessor, assisted us to get through.” 

Question.—" Did you do more when you opened the tickets than put 
the different officers’ tickets together on the table, assorting them first in 
that way?” 

Answer.—" No, sir. We put them in parcels. Threw them by them- 
selves.” 

Mr. Hirst.— i6 You assorted them in different piles before counting them 


in tens ?” 

Answer.— u Yes, sir,” 

Question. —“ How many piles were on the table ?” 

Answer. —•“ That I can’t tell.” 

Question.—“ Were all the boxes opened together or each opened one 
after the other?” 

Answer. —“ I think to the best of my knowledge they were thrown 
out, but as to how many piles there were, I could not tell. I e\en cou 
not tell the officers that were running. I never paid attention to t. 

Question. —“ Was the counting you assisted in, done correctly?” 

27 


210 


Answer. —“ I think so. I know so, to the best of my knowledge. I 
have no doubt whatever. The counting I did, I know was correct.” 

Question. —“ Who was the Deputy Sheriff there ?” 

Answer. —“ Dr. Rutter was there pretty near all day.” 

Question. —“ Had he anything to do with the tickets?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, not to my knowledge.” 

Question. —“ What part of the room was he in V 9 

Answer. —“ He sat up to the north end, near the table where we had 
lunch. He had nothing to do with the table, or anj r of the votes or 
business whatever.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ You are quite certain of that V 9 * 

Answer. —“ To the best of my knowledge, I know he had nothing to 
do with them.” 

Question .—“ Were the windows open during the time you were away, 
so that persons outside could see what was going on inside V 9 

Answer. —“ I think they were—that I can’t answer.” 

Question. —“ Were the windows so opened that persons outside could 
see in V 9 

Answer. —“ I think they were, but that I can’t answer, I was away.” 

Wallace F. Gilmore , sworn .—“ I was at the election in October, in 
the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. I was doorkeeper for the 
officers.” 

Question .—“Were you present in the room all the time the election 
was going on ?” 

Answer. —“ I was absent at one time with Mr. Trimble, to take him 
over in a wagon to vote, which took about a half an hour or three quar¬ 
ters ; and then I was absent again about ten minutes, after that. With 
these exceptions, I was there all the time.” 

Question. —“With the exception of the time when Mr. Trimble was 
away, were the officers present during the day, while the election was 
open?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Question. —“ At any time was more than one officer away from the 
room ?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir, I believe not.” 

Question. —“ Who took the tickets from the voters during the day ?” 

Answer. —“I think Mr. Bardeer did.” 

Question .—“What did he do with the tickets as the voters handed them 
to him at the window ?” 

Answer .—“ He put them on the top of the boxes till he ascertained all 
was right, and then put them in the boxes.” 

Question .—“ Did they remain in the boxes till counted off?” 

Answer. —“ To the best of my knowledge they did.” 




I 


211 

Question. —‘WAfter the polls closed, how long were you in the room?” 

Answer.—* I was in the room from the time the polls closed. I shut the 
window myself and went directly into the room, and staid there ti t e 
tickets were all counted off, and I put the lights out myself. Some wanted 
to keep the windows open, and I had to use iorce to close them. re¬ 
mained there till it was all over and put out the lights. I was present irom 
the opening of the boxes till the counting of the tickets. 

Question. _« Were the tickets in these boxes counted off by the officers?” 

Answer.— 11 They were to the best of my knowledge.” 

Question. —“ What was first done by the officers when the polls closed?” 

Answer.—* They spoke about taking something to eat, and I went after 
the refreshments, which took the ten minutes that I said I was absent, that 
was before the polls closed, and they were there when they were’closed. 
The refreshments came and the officers said they would have something to 
eat and refresh themselves before they counted off. They 
room, about four or five feet from the table, where they could have 
eyes on the boxes. After they had taken some refreshments, they sat down 
and went to counting off; the officers did ; the inspectors and judge. 

Question. —“ Did Dr. Rutter touch the tickets ?” 

Answer. — (i No, sir, not as I saw.” 

Question.—“ After the election closed, could any one interfere with 
these tickets, without your seeing them ?” 

Answer.—* I don’t think they could. I have no doubt whatever on 
that subject.” 

Question.—“ Do you remember how the boxes were counted, one a a 
time or altogether ?” 

answer —« I think the head ticket was taken first. Who was running 

i£ sx s? a rsrs 

S!h,,.,Sd I Lit Ml wketter lx m count o, not. Ho w.. ..tt.ng 
verv close there.” 

Question.—* Was any one at the table but the officers and r. au ^ 

Answer. _ * No, sir. Mr. Rutter was sitting directly back from he 

table, about three or four feet off” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Brown.-* I was the doorkeeper. Sometimes 
I was outside and sometimes inside of the door. 

Mr. Brown. —“ Pretty well divided ?” 

Yes sir My attention was confined to my duty till after 
the doo“ ciosed and then it was inside, for there was no key and I had 
prop the door inside to keep out improper persons.” 

Question.—* How often were you absent during that day ? 
Answer.—* Once with Mr. Trimble and another time about ten minu es 
to order refreshments for the officers inside.” 


212 


door keeper ?” ^ h ° d ‘ d 3,011 let ln and out > in the court* of that day, as 

site party. He said'he had^ee^S'^r ^ ed , ,ruV ? na1 ’ that was on the oppo- 
in. I kept him out some time filf'he ““I g ° and he had a "S bt to go 
there is n£ danger, and I LTum in T T* ^ and 1 said > 1 g"«* 
did nt let any one else in.” ’ ° * 16 ^ est m y knowledge I 

Question.-* How did the Sheriff’s officers get in ?” 

ledge.” r ’ ThCy had a rigili ’ but nobody else to the best of my know- 
Question .—“ Who did you let out ?” 

son, who went to ge^his'^umier 717 ° U j’ beS ' de the ins P ec tor, Mr. Man- 
family was sick. I didn’t let anil ^ 301085 the street > and said his 
Trimble.” ° dn ‘ let an * bod y d*e out during the day but Mr! 

Question .—« Thpn nil 

’ n g of the polls, remained in tilfthe° closing of tt^llT!” 6 “ at the ° pen - 
Answer “To the best of my knowledge they did.” 

Question'.-* V ?hat time did you go to order refreshments « 

ready!and then ^ orie? 6 " m 1 . 0 *” teI1 l tba y were to be 

the second order was taken by a man* out -? be ib f Te ll11 the polls closed, 

P a y attention to know k ow [(L , n) . tel> (L , te 

*>« 'v- * *». 

not sure, there were not six, but I am sure the!*^ l0Ur ° r five - 1 am 
I can t tell any ticket, with the exception oi k jvT 6 .“T® than three. 

Trimble ?” ‘ ° °° dlarse of the door when y ou went with Mr. 

Answer.—“ Mr. Gaul.” 

Question. —“ Whv 

District Attorney ticket ?” y ° U Wmember «° other ticket but the 

Toted my iicketf^LVi^ll fhad^^with‘° the ticket »- I 

Why did ^ Pay attention to that' one - 
Answer. * Because there is a great deal of tr , 7 ' 

Mr. Brown.-* Y ou could not tell that, then?" ““ ab ° U ‘ 

w itness. “I think I could, because I voted. I attend to any ticket I ■ 

Wl ‘ y d ° y ° U rCmember 'he District Attorney ticket and 

Answer — “ Because I voted it.” 

Question.—* Did y ou not vote the others” 


213 


Answer —“I voted the others. I can’t remember all the tickets now. 

I don’t know that I can tell any but that that I mentioned.” 

Question. —“ At what time did Dr. Manson go out of that room 1” 

Answer .—“ When the gentlemen were going to take their refresh¬ 
ments. He said he thought he would take his at home. I think it was 
at least ten minutes after the polls closed.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ You have stated that the boxes were closed.” 

Witness. —“ I took particular notice of that, I was shutting up and was 
looking at the table at the time. I think Dr. Manson and Mr. Bardeer 
closed them. They said the boxes had better be closed, and there was an 
argument at the table about it.” 

Question .—“ Were the boxes closed before you closed the windows V ’ 

Answer. —“ I can’t say that. I think they were closed at the time I 
got out at the window. I put my head in and asked if it was right and 
they closed the boxes, and I shut the window.” 

Mr. Brown. —“ You found them closed when you returned.” 

Witness .—“ Yes, sir. But I saw them closed when I was at the 
window before, and Manson had the boxes. I can’t say which closed 
them. Manson closed them. I am sure of that.” 

Question. —“ How long before he left to go home'?” 

Answer. —“He left about ten minutes after the polls were closed.” 

Question. —“ Who was the last man you saw at the boxes ?” 

Answer. —“ They all left at once to take their refreshments ?” 

Question. —“ Were you paying attention while the tickets were 
counted?” 

Answer. —“ I was looking at the table the whole time. 1 had nothing 
else to look at. I don’t know that I heard any of the tickets.” 

Question. —“Did you see Mr. Gaul assist 1 ?” 

Answer. —“ I did not. I saw him at the table when they were count¬ 
ing. He might have touched them, but I can’t tell whether he did or not 
now.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ You did not see him twist any?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ How did these tickets pass from the clerks to the Judge ?” 

Answer. —“ I think they passed in tens. They were counted in tens 
by the Inspectors, and handed to the Judge ; and he twisted them and put 
them into the boxes.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ And they did not go to the clerks at all ?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know whether they went to them. They had their 
writing to do. The Inspectors took the tickets to count them, and counted 
them in tens, and handed them to the Judge to twist them.” 


214 


MOYAMENSING. 

James Mount , sworn. —“ I was present at the election in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, the greatest part of the day. I went there at about ten 
in the morning, and staid till about half past eleven in the morning. I 
was there part of the afternoon, and after night; not continually there 
after night, but backwards and forwards. I left there about eight o’clock 
at night, to the best of my knowledge, and returned about half past nine 
o’clock.” 

Question .—“ During what portion of the day was there the greatest 
quantity of voting'?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know. They appeared to be pretty thronged at 
eleven in the day, and it was pretty thronged at night.” 

Question .—“ How at half past nine ?” 

Answer .—“ It appeared, to the best of my knowledge, to be about 200 
people or upwards there then. I saw them voting pretty freely then.” 

Question. —“ Are }^ou certain about the hour V 9 

Answer. — Ct About that time, as near as I can judge, boys were hauling 
about a wagon through the streets, with shavings and flour barrels in it, 
with fire on it, that required me to be about there.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Brown. —“ I voted there myself. I can’t be 
precise as to the time. I was a police officer at the time, in attendance 
on my duties.” 

Question. —“ You said that at half past 9 o’clock there were about 200 
persons there, what do you mean—that there were that number assem¬ 
bled ?” 

Answer .—“ There were a large number of people about the polls; 
there were more than 200 persons, some of them voters, and some of them 
perhaps lookers on. They appeared to be voting pretty freely.” 

Question .—“Was not 11 o’clock in the morning the freest time V 9 

Answer. —“ I don’t think it was.” 

Question .—“ How often were you there during the whole day?” 

Answer. —“ I was there in the morning, and backwards and forwards 
in the afternoon and night. I was not particularly stationary there more 
than any other place.” 

Hugh Hart, sworn .—“I was present at the last election in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing. I was off and on there all day, and I was there at 
night till half past 10.” 

Question .—“ During what part of the day was there the greatest quan¬ 
tity of voting ?” 

Answer .—“The greatest number, in my estimation, was from 6 to 10 
o’clock.” 

Question .—“ How between 9 and 10?” 

Answer —“ There was a large crowd there. I should say there was a 
great number of voters there. A string formed from the window. I could 
not say in which of the hours between 6 and 10 there was the largest 
number voting. There was a crowd there all the time.” 


215 


Jackson D. Welsch, sworn.—“ I was at the last election, in October, in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing, all day, off and on, and in the evening, I 
was there all the time, from dark, with the exception of about half an 
hour, I guess. I don’t know when I left, but it was not till one or two 
o’clock in the morning. I guess I was about there all the time till two 
o’clock. From dark to ten o’clock there was the greatest crowd of voters 
and persons about the polls. There was a good string of voters there 
between nine and ten o’clock, to the best of my knowledge.” 

Question. — ££ How many John Hills did you know in the ward then Vj 

Answer. ££ I knew two, one was a distiller and the other a bricklayer. 
The distiller lives in Lombard street, above Ninth, now, 1 believe. The 
other has gone to New Orleans, I think—somewheres out in that way. I 
knew him.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell.—Question .— ££ Was the distiller em¬ 
ployed by A. C. Craig & Co'?” 

Anewer .— c£ I don’t know who he was employed by.” 

Question. — ££ Where did the other live 

Answer In Milton, between Tenth and Eleventh. I can’t tell with 
whom he lived. He did work for a man named Ferris, a bricklayer, in 
Southwark. I don’t know where he lives. His name is James Ferris. 
To the best of my knowledge he worked with him. He was a young 
man with no family. I think he has gone to New Orleans, or somewheres 
in that neighborhood, just after the election, I think.” 

James Murphy , recalled. — Question. — ££ Do you know Mr. Gillis, who 
was examined here to prove he voted for Mr. Reed at the last election V > 

Answer. — ££ I have been acquainted with him.” 

Question. — ££ What was his condition at the time he voted V 9 

Answer. — <£ In a state of intoxication; very noisy at the time. I 
think he was not in a state in which he could know who he voted for.” 

William H» Fagan) sworn. — Question .— ££ Do you know Mr. Megrani- 
gan, examined here ?” 

Answer. — ££ I do. I believe he cannot read or write. I have heard he 
could not, from persons who know him well. The captain of the watch 
told me he served under him, and he could not read or write. I have 
known him for seven or eight years, I think.” 

Question. — ££ Were you a good deal at the last election in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing V 9 

Answer. — ££ I was, I had the window book in the morning when the 
polls opened, and I was there, off and on, till the polls closed. The greatest 
quantity of voting was done from twelve to two, mid-day, and from, I 
think, six to ten in the evening; they voted steadily the whole time from 
six to ten. I don’t remember a vacuum in the whole course of the even- 
ing.” 

Question. — ££ What course was pursued by the officers, when a voter 
appeared whose name was not on the assessment list?” 

Answer .— ££ They pursued the general course pursued by officers of 
elections; they required vouchers and naturalization papers, and other 


216 


things, the same as they do generally. They required, when persons were 
challenged, naturalization papers.” 

Question. —“If a person presented himself to vote, whose name was 
not on the assessment list, did or did not the officers require a sworn 
voucher, unless known to themselves ?” 

Answer. —“ They did.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ You had an opportunity of seeing the manner in which 
persons brought up their votes to the window 

Answer. —“ I had. When the polls opened in the morning, there were 
forty or fifty persons there principally Whigs. I don’t think that one out 
of every five had their tickets untied ; that is my impression, I would not 
like to swear to it. I knew a good many of them, and I don’t think their 
tickets were untied.” 

Question. —“ Was the vote of that party principally polled in the 
morning.” 

Answer. —“ There was a great many more there in the morning, than 
there was at any one time afterwards; at least I thought so.” 

Edward H. Falkner, sworn. — Question. —“ Were you a clerk at the last 
general election 

Answer. —“I was, in Seventh Ward, Spring Garden.” 

Question. —“ What number of votes were polled in that Ward ?” 

Answer. —I don’t recollect, in the neighborhood of 900 votes. I don’t 
know the precise number.” 

Question.— “ What time did you finish counting off and putting the 
votes in the boxes ?” 

Answer. —“Between seven and half-past seven o’clock, on Wednesday 
evening.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ You had a very cautious judge 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, The reason of being so late was that we were all 
strange hands except one, and he had not been in for many years, and we 
were very cautious how we counted off.” 

Mr. Hirst asks that “ as this is a matter purely of fact, depending on the 
credibility of witnesses,” it be referred to a jury. 

Objected to by Mr. Campbell and discussed by Mr. Hirst. 

Judge King.—“ I, myself, am clearly against this motion. If the ap¬ 
plication had been made at an earlier stage of the inquiry, and if I could 
have discovered in the Act of Assembly and the proceedings consequent 
upon it, authority to refer this to a jury, unquestionably I would have 
done it; for it would have relieved us from one of the most painful of 
judicial duties,—that of determining upon conflicting testimony. I speak 
now for myself, but I feel I should be making myself as a judge ridiculous, 
after I had gone on and heard three or four hundred witnesses,—the con¬ 
testants fully heard and the respondents nearly finished,—if I should, 
simply upon application from one party alone, shrink from doing my own 
duty, and hand that duty away to be performed by a jury. The counsel 
has compared this to proceedings in chancery. Where is the chancellor 


217 


that ever deserved the name, who, after hearing the case on both sides, 
would listen to an application to refer it to a jury'? A chancellor, some¬ 
times, after hearing the testimony on both sides and finding his mind 
embarrassed, orders the issue himself;—that is, to inform his own con¬ 
science. And it may be, among the range of human possibilities that such 
a course may be taken in this case; but this is not the time, and these are 
not the circumstances under which to do it. I think the application it 
improvident,—made out of season, and irregular, and that this course muss 
go on.” 

Judge Campbell .— 1 “ I don’t think myself, that it is made out of time> 
and I do not see that it could be more seasonably made, than at the pre~ 
sent time. We have now heard the contestants, and the answer of the 
respondent, and this in my opinion is the proper time in which this appli¬ 
cation should be made ;—when this conflict of testimony has been made 


distinctly clear. 

“ I shall, however, hear the whole testimony in the case, and I shall 
reserve my opinion till after all of that testimony is finished. When that 
is done, if it is a case in which I cannot clearly make up my mind either 
one way oi the other, I shall be in favor of referring it to a jury ; if it 
is a case in which I think a jury is necessary,! shall certainly say so. In 
all questions of fact, where there is conflict in the testimony produced, a 
jury had better decide it. But there may be cases where it is important 
that there should be an early decision, and it should not be referred to a 
jury ; an! there are other cases in which it is proper and right that the 
questions of fact should be decided by a jury.” 


Judge Kelley.— “ I think this application is especially out of time 
now, and I think that coming from either of the parties in the cause, it 
would have been out of time at any period. The act of Assembly makes 
it the duty of the Judges to hear contested election cases, and determine 
them upon the merits. To have applied to the Court to refer this case to 
a jury before it was opened and the testimony heard, would have been to 
invite the Judges, without the shadow of power to do so, to devolve it 
upon another Tribunal. To refer this case to a jury now, would be to 
shrink from the performance of our duty and to confess to the public, 
and to the Legislature, the sovereignty of the State, that they had cast 
upon at least one bench of Judges, a jurisdiction for which they were in¬ 
competent from want of moral courage. This application would have 
been out of time at any moment as a matter of mere chancery practice. 
A chancellor will never direct an issue until he is prepared to say on his 
own motion that the evidence is so equally balanced that it is impossible to 
sav which scale preponderates. A feigned issue and a jury may possibly, 
if "within our power, become necessary in this case ; but it must come at 
the call of the Judges, and come because without the aid ot a jury, an en¬ 
lightened, clear and conscientious decision of the cause cannot be made.. 
But such a balance of testimony cannot be supposed until the evidence is 
concluded; and then if two Judges of this Court, after surveying it all, 
and balancing the credibility of witnesses, can come to a concurrent udg- 
ment a jury would be out of place, and to call in such a jury would be 
Tn evasion of the law. Even then the invocation of a jury, by chancery 
practice, must come from the Court, and not from the parties. 
p Until I am satisfied of the power, and that two of the Judges can 
arrive at a concurrent judgment, I shall not invoke the trial by jury in 
this or any other election case.’* 


28 


218 


’ Dennis Loughlin, recalled.—Mr. Hirst.—“In reference to Henry 
Barton, he said he knew no other person of his own name in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Witness. — 44 I can’t say positively, whether his name is Henry or 
Joseph, who I heard swear here in the Court. I know he has got a son 
of the name of Henry or Joseph, and that son I myself before your honor, 
Judge King, have subpoenaed in the Court of Quarter Sessions as a witness, 
and when I subpoenaed him he said he lived in the neighborhood of 
Eighth and Catharine.” 

Question. — 44 Do you recollect whether the son was of the same name 
as the father?” 

Answer. — 44 I can’t say positively. It was Barton anyhow. It was 
either Henry or Joseph.” 

Question. —“Do you know Felix Bradley?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir.” 

Question .—“ What took place between him and Peter Donnelly on the 
subject of his voting?” 

Answer. —“ There was a man by the name of Michael Lamb, and me, 
and Felix Bradley together about two weeks ago, and he says to me, I 
have been subpoenaed here, and I don’t know what I have been subpoenaed 
for; and Michael Lamb said, I have been, and I don’t know whether by 
Mr. Kneass or Mr. Reed; says I, 4 Mike, didn’t you vote the democratic 
ticket,’ and he said, 4 X voted the ticket you gave me and that was the 
democratic ticket and nothing else. My friend Mr. Campbell, in the 
State House yard, was in conversation with Michael Lamb, and Michael 
Lamb said, 4 who is going to pay me for coming into Court,’ and Mr. 
Campbell said, 4 who did } r ou vote for,’ and he said, 4 it is none of your 
business.’ Mr. Bradley and Michael Lamb and I went into Mr. Hirst’s 
office; after we came out, said Felix Bradley to Mr. Donnelly, 4 1 did’nt 
vote at Second Ward, Moyamensing;’ said Mr. Donnelly to him, 4 you 
have voted, and I can prove I took your vote;’ says he, 4 1 have not,’ and 
says Donnelly to him, 4 1 can prove you have.’ The conversation lasted 
a little while, and Mr. Bradley turned to me and said, 4 1 have voted often¬ 
times, and I don’t want to say anything about it,’ and he came before your 
Honors here and swore he didn’t vote at all.” 

Mr. Campbell. — 44 1 have made the suggestion to my friends to suffer them 
to finish their evidence on Monday morning, and let me examine two or 
three witnesses now, whoml keep here with the greatest difficulty.” 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 The very point to which it is proposed to give this evi¬ 
dence is a matter which we think ought to have been given in chief, and 
will meet with resistance from us.” 

Mr. Campbell. — 44 1 don’t think you will meet with the technical diffi¬ 
culty here. 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 Well go on then.” 

John W. Winters , sworn. — Mr. Campbell. — 44 There is a gentleman 
named John Winters at 947 on the list. Mr. Ringland was examined on 
behalf of the respondent, and he said he knew John Winters, and to the 
best of his knowledge he voted. [See page 61.] Upon cross-examination 




219 


he says, 4 1 think I was at the window when Mr. Winters voted, &c.’ [See 
page 62.] I want to call this gentleman to prove that he did not vote nor 
was not at the polls.” 

Judge King. — u Ask the question.” 

Question. —“Did you vote at the late general election in Second Ward y 
Moyamensing ?” 

Answer. —“ I did not.” 

Question. —“ With whom are you employed, and where is your place 
of business 

Answer. —“I am an upholsterer with Cowperthwaite & Co., Fifth 
above Chesnut.” 

J udge King.— “ Do you know Mr. Ringland V* 

Answer. —“ I do, sir.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Hirst. — Question. — ct Were you at the polls'?” 

Answer. —“ I was not, sir, nor near them ; nearer than my own house, 
to the best of my knowledge, positively, from early in the morning till 
7 o’clock at night, I know where I was, exactly. The evening or night, 
I think, I spent in the city; I think I spent it at Eighth and Chesnut 
streets, S. E. corner, in the second story of Cheu’s Building, at a meeting 
room—at a private room. I think Alexander Johnson was there. He 
resides in Arch street above Sixth. I don’t know who else were there. 
I am speaking to the best of my knowledge, as regards the evening and 
night. I think T can prove it was so, though. In the day time, I know 
exactly where I was.” 

Question. —“ What business does Alexander Johnson follow V* 

Answer. — cc He is a dentist.” 

Question. —“ Where were you during the day V 9 

Answer. —“ I was employed at several places, attending to my business. 
I was at Matthew Baldwin’s in the morning. I think I was at Mr. Ca¬ 
bot’s in the morning, in Spruce, above Eleventh. I was there engaged at 
work.” 

Question. —“ Can you tell where you were on the evening of the 18th 
of last October'?” 

Answer. —“ I know where I was in the evening, which I call about 
dark.” 

Question. —“ Where were you the evening of the 18th of October 1” 

Answer .—“ I don’t recollect.” 

Question .—“ Do you recollect where you were on the evening of the 
25th, or any other day in October '?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir. The reason I recollect election day, was that I 
thought the voting was done in Eighth, below Shippen, and I went as I 
went°up to the store. There was nobody there, and I did not know where 
the polls were, till I read it in the paper, and I could not tell where the 
polls were now. I reside in Ninth below Shippen.” 


220 


Re-examined.—Question .— u Are you positively certain that }ou did 
not vote V 9 

Answer. —“ I know I did not, sir.” 

Hiram Lyons , sworn. —[On behalf of the respondents ]— Question. 
il What time did you vote at the last election in Second Ward, Moyamen- 
sing V 9 

Answer. — u I voted between four and six o’clock, as near as I can tell. 
It was just about on the brink of lamp-lighting, as near as I can guess 
of it.” 

Mr. Hirst.— “No. 774 on the list of voters.” 

Jeremiah Robbins , affirmed. — Mr. Campbell. — (i I propose to prove that 
this gentleman did not vote. His number is 957.” 

The admission of this testimony is objected to by Mr. Hirst , and argued 
by Mr. Campbell and Mr. Hirst till the hour of adjournment.” 

Adjourned to meet on Tuesday next, March 11th, 1851, at 10 A, M. 




Tuesday, March 11,1851.—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

The question before the Court at its adjournment on Friday last, was 
further argued by Mr. Campbell , for the contestants, and Mr. Hirst and 
J. M. Read , for the respondent. 

Judge King. —“ I have given this question much deliberation and 
reflection, and the conclusions I have arrived at, are the deliberate result 
thereof. In a court of justice, there are two sorts of testimony, direct and 
positive, and circumstantial and presumptive. Direct and positive testi¬ 
mony, as well as circumstantial and presumptive, given by a party plain¬ 
tiff or complainant, may, of course, be rebutted by his opponent. Positive 
testimony he may rebut by positive testimony, or by circumstances out¬ 
weighing the effect of that positive testimony; and so with presumptive 
or indirect testimony. Now in this case, the contestants, in order to sus¬ 
tain their position, allege that after a certain hour, on the night of the 
election, a large number of votes were added to the list, of individuals who 
never, according to the circumstances proved by them, could have bona 
fide given their votes as set forth in the election papers. To establish this 
fact, among other things, they bring Mr. Landon, whose name is on the 
window list, No. 878, to prove that he voted between ten and twenty 
minutes before ten 5 that at that time there was no press at the polls ; that 
very few persons were voting, and that he left the polls and proceeded 
to his house in the vicinity, and on his arrival there the clock struck ten. 
From this testimony, the contestants seek to infer that the return of the 
officers must be fraudulent, since it is a moral impossibility, if Mr. Landon 
voted at No. 878, at fifteen minutes before ten, for 345 more votes, which 
are necessary to constitute the aggregate of 1223, to have been given. 
Of course the respondent found it expedient and proper to endeavor to 







221 


shake the effect of that testimony. To accomplish this, he first produces 
persons who actually voted, whose numbers are long subsequent to Mr. 
Landon’s. Secondly, he calls witnesses to show the appearance of indi¬ 
viduals on the ground, whose names are on the list long posterior to Mr. 
Landon’s j and thirdly, he calls the Assessor to show that many of the 
individuals, whose names are supposed to be fraudulently interpolated on 
the list, have the same name as persons that he had assessed in their proper 
residences. In connection with the last point, the respondent produces 
the official list of voters, to prove that many of the persons assessed were 
of the same name as the person who purports to have voted posterior to 
the time when this fraud is alleged to have been perpetrated. It is per¬ 
fectly competent to rebut all the statements thus offered by the respond¬ 
ents, and such testimony would be strictly rebutting testimony. You can 
rebut, not only the positive testimony directly tending to sustain any posi¬ 
tion attempted to be taken in a judicial inquiry, but you can explain away 
the circumstantial testimony, by which your antagonist has proposed to 
support any position taken by him. As to positive testimony, I presume 
it is not disputed. For instance, a party swears he voted 1221, and his 
name is A. B.; you could certainly show by a person having the same 
name, and duly assessed, that he did not vote, and that there was but one 
person of that name in the Ward. This would not be disputed, as it 
would be the highest order of rebutting testimony. _ Can you not also 
contradict circumstances amounting to less than positive testimony ? I 
think so; and we have done it with the last witness examined in this case. 
For example : a man by the name of Winters is described as \oting at 
No. 947. Mr. Ringland was examined, and swore he saw Mr. Winters 
on the ground, and to the best of his recollection, he voted. . He did not 
say he actually voted, but it was a strong expression of opinion to this 
effect, though not a positive assertion of the fact. What inference, then, 
was proposed to be drawn from the testimony of Mr. Ringland ? Was it 
not that Mr. Winters had voted? And if his testimony had not been 
explained, who would have hesitated in believing that Winters voted? 
When it became important to show circumstances countervailing this, how 
was it done ? By producing Mr. Winters, who swore he had not been on 
the Ground the whole day. That took away the force of Mr. Ringland’s 
testimony, and showed he was mistaken in the impression he had. The 
admissibility of this was so clear, that it was not objected to by the counsel 

for the respondent. ^ . .. , , 

“ But there was a third species of evidence offered—evidence, tending to 

show the probability that the parties alluded to actually voted. The as¬ 
sessor beino- called, said he assessed certain individuals; among others, 
John Robbins, the witness now offered to rebut, a jeweller, living in a 
part of the district designated by him. The counsel immediately after 
that turned and said Mr. Robbins’ number was 957, was not proof that 
Mr. bobbins was a duly assessed inhabitant of Moyamensing, coupled with 
the name of the same person at 957, strong presumptive evidence to show 
that the John Robbins assessed was the John Robbins who voted at 957 
Suppose such a proposition submitted to a jury to establish the fact, that 
John Robbins voted in Second Ward, Moyamensing ; what better pre¬ 
sumptive testimony could you produce, than to show the assessment of 
John Robbins in that ward and the fact that a person of that name voted . 
Would it not even be conclusive evidence of that fact unless rebutted by 
testimony tending to countervail it, or unless the return was so utterly 


090 

without faith as not to be worthy of consideration ? I say it would. If 
this testimony has such a tendency, is it not competent to contradict it ? 
Is it not competent to show that although the Court might infer from the 
fact that a person voted at 957, named John Robbins, and that a person of 
that name was actually assessed, that that vote was not given because the 
John ^Robbins assessed was not the person who voted ? To my mind, it is 
perfectly clear that inasmuch as the testimony offered to show that John 
Robbins voted, was circumstantial, arising from the fact of there being 
such an assessed inhabitant of the ward, it is competent by way of rebuttal 
to show that the John Robbins so assessed in the ward did not vote. 

“It was said in the argument, that the Assessor’s list with the accompa- 
nying proof, was offered by the respondent for a different purpose ; to con¬ 
tradict the effect of the statement of Mr. Miller, who alleged he was not fa¬ 
miliar with any of the persons contained in the long list referred to him, as 
inhabitants of the Ward. But the testimony had another tendency, and no 
matter for what purpose testimony may be offered, if in addition to its pro¬ 
fessed object it has a tendency to establish something else affecting the 
case clearly, the party on whom such testimony so bears, has a right to 
rebut that something; otherwise, I can imagine that a man of talent, familiar 
with the conduct of a case, might introduce testimony for a collateral and 
secondary object, and yet it might have the most direct and overwhelming 
influence upon the main question. Will the Court then say, “ we will not 
admit rebutting evidence countervailing such testimony, because such 
countervailing testimony has not necessarily a tendency to rebut that for 
which the testimony in chief purported to be offered although the Court 
at the same was conscious that it had another and more decided influ¬ 
ence. To my mind the proposition is clear that the Court should look to 
things and not words. They should look to the actual effect of such testi¬ 
mony, and rebutting evidence to meet that effect should be admitted. 

“ Again—Rebutting testimony is, after all, a thing dependant upon 
the sound discretion of the Court, provided always that the testi¬ 
mony is relevant; and the courts of Pennsylvania have gone very 
far upon this subject. To this effect, we have the authority of Chief 
Justice Tilghman, in Richardson vs. Stewart, 4 Binney 198, where 
he declares that material testimony ought not to be rejected, merely 
because offered after the evidence is closed on both sides, unless it 
has been kept back by trick, or the adverse party would be deceived 
or injured by it. The same doctrine is asserted in Devall vs. Bur- 
bridge, 6 W. and S. 529, where Judge Huston declares that it re¬ 
quires a strong case to authorize the absolute rejection of material testi¬ 
mony in any stage of the case. Now, I myself, if I am justified in 
quoting my own experience, have admitted testimony after the case was 
closed ; and for what ? To advance justice and promote right. For those 
great purposes the rule is, to receive material testimony offered at any 
stage, provided the offer be made bona fide under the stress of unforeseen 
circumstances, and unaccompanied with trick or fraud. 

“ One more remark is called for by the line of argument of the 
counsel for the respondent. It does not follow, because testimony may 
be admitted in chief it may not be admitted by way of rebuttal. The 
contrary is a matter of every day practice. Any judge who has ever 
tried criminal cases to any extent, knows, that it a party is indicted, 
for instance, for assault and battery, and twenty witnesses are sum¬ 
moned to prove it, three of whom are examined, the Court can say 




223 


to the parties, ‘You can stop here;’ and afterwards, if the prosecutor 
is found to be pressed by the defendant’s testimony, his original testi¬ 
mony is then admitted by way of rebutter. I refer to these* doctrines, 
generally, to show that the admissibility of rebutting testimony, is always 
founded upon the sound discretion of the Court, exercised for the promo¬ 
tion and advancement of justice, but guarded in such a way as to prevent 
the surprise of the opposite party ; the Court always giving an oppor¬ 
tunity , as will be given in this case, of responding to the testimony thus 
produced, if he is, or appears to be unfairly affected by it. The essential 
giound, however, on which I rest my opinion is, that the evidence offer¬ 
ed, is essentially rebutting testimony, and that it tends to explain away 
circumstances which have been advanced on behalf of the respondent, 
in order to destroy or affect the testimony which has been produced by the 
contestant, to sustain the allegations of his complaint.” 

Judge Campbell.— “ It has been my lot in the hearing of this case to 
differ frequently with my brethren, but in none of the questions submitted 
to us, in which I have been obliged to dissent, have I felt clearer than in 
the matter now presented. We are now asked to admit testimony to rebut 
certain parts of the testimony offered by the respondent. Two allegations 
were made by the contestant; first, that a number of persons whose names, 
were upon the list of voters, did not vote; second, that a number of names 
from 907 to the end of the list, were fictitious and fraudulent names, and 
the names of persons who did not reside in the ward, and did not vote at 
that election. In order to prove the first proposition, the parties themselves 
were examined. To establish the second, two witnesses have been examined, 
Alderman Campbell and Andrew Miller. The list of votes, from 907 to 
1223 was placed in their hands, and each of these gentlemen was asked to 
look at that list, and to state to the Court how many names they recognized 
on it as persons residing in that ward. Mr. Miller answered, I think, that 
he knew four or five ; Alderman Campbell knew a larger number, and 
upon that testimony we are asked to draw the conclusion that these were 
fraudulent and fictitious names, the names of persons not residing in that 
ward, and of course not entitled to vote. To rebut that, as I understood 
it, Mr. Hirst , the counsel for the respondent, produced Mr. McFall. He 
stated in general that he went round to all the houses in the ward, and 
inserted only the names of such persons as had their residence in it. 

“ In making the extra assessment, he only inserted such names as he had 
evidence were residents of the ward at the time. The counsel for the 
respondent went further—they asked him to take up, name by name, from 
907 to the end of the list. After some time he was stopped, because it 
was unnecessary thus to consume the public time, for he was only repeating 
in detail what he had stated in general,—that he was only asserting that 
he had assessed this and that citizen, one by one, when he had in general 
terms said he had assessed them all. It was thought unnecessary for him 
to go on, and he was asked to take the list home with him and give to the 
Court on some other occasion, the names of the persons whom he knew. 
That was the purpose for which that testimony, as I understood it, was 
offered, and the sole purpose for which it was offered. Of course, there 
may be an inference resulting from it. There is no doubt that Mr. Rob¬ 
bins and the other witnesses could have been examined in chief, in order 
to rebut the inference that must arise from the fact of their names being 
inserted on the assessor’s list and the list of voters. As testimony in chief 
this was appropriate, and accordingly a number of witnesses were exam- 


ined on this point of their case by the contestants, in order to meet this 
necessary inference, but as rebutting testimony I cannot perceive on what 
ground it can be admitted. To me, the propasition was so clear when 
submitted, that I could not conceive that there could be any difficulty 
about it, and I have heard nothing since, calculated in the least to change 
that opinion. It is a re-opening of the whole case, and does not rebut 
any of the testimony of the respondent.” 

Judge Kelley. —“It may appear idle for me to attempt to add anything 
to the ample and cogent reasons of the president Judge in favor of admit¬ 
ting this testimony, but it will not be out of place to refer to the very 
strong illustration of the correctness of his position which the printed 
evidence affords. Mr. McFall, as will be seen by a reference to pp. 66 
and 67, after testifying generally that he had assessed the persons whose 
names were on the regular assessment list, by calling at the house of each 
of them and receiving his name there, and those whose names were on 
the extra assessment list, by receiving the parties at the ward house on the 
days appointed by law, and that he addressed nobody who did not per¬ 
sonally appear before him; was asked by the counsel for the respondent, 
as to whether each individual on the assessment list whose name was on 
the window list was regularly assessed by him in this way, the question, 
which was always answered affirmatively, being accompanied by the an¬ 
nouncement that the individual designated stood at such a number on the 
list of voters. Upon this course being objected to by the respondent—an 
objection I had myself anticipated in consultation with my brethren; and 
on the counsel for the respondent being asked what was the object of the 
testimony, the answer was as will be seen by reference to p. 66. 

“It was deemed at one time material to raise up the idea, that three 
hundred fictitious names of persons unknown, with some five or six excep¬ 
tions, were put on the list of voters. Alderman Campbell was called to 
show this fact, so was Andrew Miller. I propose to show by the Assessor 
that he not only knew these men , but visited one hundred and fifty of them 
at their houses. 

“ Again—On the next page, where the witness upon being referred to 
the name of ‘ James O’Neill,’ on the list of voters, says that there were six 
‘ James O’Neills’ who had been assessed and were personally known to 
him, the counsel for the respondent added, £ two have voted out of the 
six; this one is 952.’ It is evident, therefore, that this testimony was 
offered for the purpose of impressing the mind of the Court with the con¬ 
viction that the men who had been thus assessed, and who were thus 
named under oath by the witness then upon the stand, were the persons 
whose names were to be found upon the list of voters. The officers swore 
to the regularity of the election, the voters list was vouched by them as 
correct, and this, certainly, in connection with the presumption that all 
public officers perform their duty, which stands till expressly contradicted, 
would raise the presumption, that the votes alleged to have been surrepti¬ 
tiously added were bona fide polled by persons regularly assessed. The 
testimony now offered is admissable to meet this legal presumption. But 
the objection is made that it should have been offered in chief, and is 
therefore incompetent as rebutting testimony. The rule undoubtedly is 
that testimony in chief should be offered as such, and not reserved for 
the purpose of rebutting, by which unfair advantage might be taken and 
the adverse party surprised, or litigation be much protracted. That is 
the general rule, but is it inflexible ? May no circumstances modify it? 


225 


Is it the one general rule to which there is no exception % Like all other 
general rules it is not without its exceptions—it may be modified by cir¬ 
cumstances. 

u The contestants in this case, guided by presumption of the law, that 
all done by public officers is done regularly, could well rely upon the 
opening of the ballot boxes to furnish them with the assessor’s list. It 
would be to them a directory, with the residence of every man who had 
voted on that day. When the boxes were opened, one of two things 
was disclosed—either that the officers of the election had not conducted 
it with entire regularity, or that the ballot boxes had been tampered with. 
The assessor’s list was not there—they were therefore without their direc¬ 
tory. They have produced a large number of men whose names are 
found on the list of voters, and who swore that they did not vote, and that 
they knew of no other person of the same name residing in the ward, and 
therefore, from this it may be inferred that they are the persons named on 
the list of voters, and that their names are fraudulently added to the list. 
After the contestants closed their case, the respondents produced upon the 
stand the assessor, whose testimony connected with the purpose for which 
it was declared to be offered—that of showing that the assessor not only 
knew these men, but had visited one hundred and fifty of them in their 
houses—gave the contestants means of ascertaining their residences and 
serving legal processes upon them. Then owing to the absence of that list, 
for the first time theygained access to the persons and produce them in Court; 
evidently as the persons named on the list of voters—it would be clearly 
within the discretion of the Court to admit the testimony upon that ground; 
it would be the duty of the judge under the decisions cited from 4 Bin. 
and 6 W. & S., to do it upon that ground alone; but connecting that with 
those so fully and amply disclosed by the president Judge, I cannot hesi¬ 
tate for a moment as to the propriety of admitting this testimony, and 
therefore concur with him.” 

Jeremiah Robbins , recalled. — Question. —“ What is your business V 9 

Answer .—“ Jeweller. I reside in Tenth, first door above Shippen, 
west side: No. 260 south Tenth.” 

Question .—“ Did you vote at the late General Election in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing ?” 

Mr. Hirst. — “ I don’t know whether it is supposed that Jeremiah Rob¬ 
bins can disprove the fact that John Robbins voted.” 

Air. Campbell. —“Is there any other gentleman by the name of Jere¬ 
miah Robbins, who lives in that house ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir ; there never has been.” 

Question. —“ Did you vote at the last General Election V 9 

Answer. —“ I did not, nor did I go nearer the place of voting than my 
residence.” 

Question. —“Is there any gentleman named John Robbins, who lives 
in that house 

Answer. —“ No, sir ; there is no other person by the name of J. Rob¬ 
bins in the Ward.” 

29 


226 


Thomas Shannon, sworn. —“I reside in Spring Garden. I have resided 
in Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Mr. Campbell.— “ No. 958—page 67.” [McFall’s evidence.] 

Question. — li Did you live in Tenth) above Christian 1 

Answer. —“Yes, sir. Iam a coach painter by trade. I moved into 
Spring Garden last May.” 

Question.— “ Did you vote in Second Ward, Moyaming, at the last elec¬ 
tion ?” 

Answer. —“ I did not, sir.” 

Cross-examined. — Question. —“ Did you live in Eleventh, below Cath¬ 
arine V 9 

Answer. —“ No, sir, I never lived there, but in Tenth, above Christian. 

Charles Clair , sworn—Question. —“ Did you know a man named Jacob 
Mayland, in Moyamensing V 9 

Answer. —“ No, sir ; nor in Southwark.” 

Question. —“ Did a man of that name ever drive for you V 9 

Answer. —“ Not that I know of, he might, but I don’t know him by the 
name.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You don’t know such a man at all?” 

Witness. —“ I don’t know; I might know him, but not his name; I have 
so many drivers that I can’t tell; sometimes I have four or five a week \ 
I can’t tell the names ; not all; some I can. I can’t tell without you de¬ 
scribe the man, then I might tell, if anybody was here to describe him. I 
reside in Sixth Ward, Southwark.” 

Jacob S . Haas, sworn .—“ I am Coroner of the County of Philadelphia, 
and was in August last.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Look at that inquest V 9 

Witness .—“ That is my holding. I held it on the second day of August.” 

Cross-examined. — Question. — 5C Did you call a jury V 9 

Answer. —“ No, sir, in cases like that the law does not require it. I saw 
the body. He was a man about five feet ten inches, a pretty well set man, 
a stout face and large chest, he appeared to be so laying in the ice. I don’t 
remember whether his hair was black or not, it runs in my mind that it 
might have been dark. I would not say whether he had whiskers or not, 
at the time I could have told, but it has gone by.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Your memory is not strong on the subject of his appear¬ 
ance V 9 

Answer. —“ It is strong enough to know I held the view on that day. 
It is my impression that his hair was dark, but whether he had whiskers I 
am not prepared to say.” 

Question .—“ Have you any recollection of his face?” 

Answer. —“ The color of his face, I can tell, as he lay in the ice j it 
was red. I can’t tell whether he had whiskers.” 

Question. —“Do you recollect anything else about him?” 





227 


Answer. —“Nothing further than that I held a view upon the body. I 
never to my knowledge knew him before. I never saw him before, till 
his aunt called on me to hold that view of the body.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I give in evidence this inquest. I shall follow it by 
other evidence by and by.” [Reads.] 

Charles Moss, sworn. — Mr. Campbell. — “No. 1075; he was referred 
to by Mr. Ringland, on page 61.” 

Question. —“Did you reside in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the last 
general election ?” 

Answer .— “ I resided in Milton street, above Tenth. 

Question. —“ Did you vote at the last general election'?” 

Answer .— “ I never voted at a general election in America. Milton 
street is between Christian and Carpenter. I suppose I have lived there 
these ten months.” 

Samuel McGowan, sworn.—Question .—■“ Did you reside in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, at the time of the last election '?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question _ “ Where did you live'?” 

Answer _“ In Southwark, in Queen street, above Fifth. I never did 

live in Moyamensing. I had a small place of business there, in Seventh 
street, above Shippen.” 

Question. —“ Did you vote in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the last 
election'?” 

Answer. —“No, sir.” 

Julius Pullen, sworn.— “ I served two subpoenas on Andrew McQuil- 
len, I think the last time I served it on him was one day last week. I 
served it at two different times.” 

Edward McClue, sworn.— [No. 980.]—“ I live in Moyamensing all the 
time. In Milton, above Tenth.” 

Question. —“ Tell whether you voted at the last general election in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing.” 

Answer. —“ I did not vote.” 

John Dunn , sworn. — Mr. Campbell.— ■“ He is No. 987. Mr. McFall 
did not mention him, but he is on the list of voters.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Then I object to him.” 

[The witness is withdrawn for the present.] 

William Kernan , Sr., sworn. —[No. 968.]—“lam Wm. Kernan, JVs. 
father It is a twelve-month, to-morrow, since I have been out of Moya¬ 
mensing. I lived at No. 8 Flower street, when I lived there; it is above 

Catharine.” 

Question. — “Did you vote in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the last 
election V 9 

Answer. —“ I did not.” 

Question _“ Did your eon live with you P‘ 


228 


Answer. — “ Yes, sir. I lived at the corner of Sixth and Spring streets, 
at the time of the last election. I voted in Mulberry Ward. My son 
voted there also.” 

John Duffy, sworn. —[No. 918.] Question. —“ Did you live in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing, at the late general election V* 

Answer. —“Yes, sir, in Tenth street, below Christian.” 

Question. —“Did you vote at the last general election, in Second Ward’ 
Moyamensing V 9 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell offers in evidence the deposition of Moses Lipman, who 
was sick; it was taken by consent. His name is “M. J. Lipman,” 1084. 

DEPOSITION. 

The deposition of Moses Lipman , a witness on behalf of the contes¬ 
tants, taken at his residence, 366 South street, above Eighth, on account 
of his indisposition, before David Webster, Examiner, by consent, on 
Monday, March 10, 1851, at 4 o’clock, P. M. Present— Wm. B. Mann, 
Esq., for contestants; Henry J. Horn, Esq., for respondents. Aid. Joseph 
Shermer. 

Mr. Mann states that he offers the witness to prove that he did not vote 
at the General Election, held in October, 1850, in Second Ward, Moya¬ 
mensing ; and that he does not know any other person in said Ward of 
his name. 

Mr. Horn objects, on the ground that the testimony offered is evidence 
in chief, and not rebutting, and liable to the objections raised in Court by 
the counsel of the respondent. 

The witness is sworn, and examined, subject to the objection, and says : 

“ I now reside in South street, above Eighth, south side. I resided a 
few doors below at the time of the election in October, 1850. I did not 
vote at that election, either in Second Ward, Moyamensing, or anywhere 
else. I have a nephew by the name of Moses Lipman, but he does not 
reside, and did not reside in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the time of 
the election. He is only a boy of eighteen, and arrived in the city yes¬ 
terday from the West. Except that boy, I do not know any one else who 
bears the name of Moses Lipman, in Second Ward, Moyamensing, or any 
where else. I am unwell, and have been unwell for several weeks, and 
unable to get out.” 

Cross-examined, subject to the objection. — “ I am not a voter. I never 
voted in Philadelphia. I was well at the time of the election. I have 
resided in this Ward (Second Ward, Moyamensing) about six months. 
Previous to that I had been travelling in the South for three or four years. 
I was home last spring on a visit. I am not well acquainted in this Ward. 

MOSES LIPMAN.” 

“Taken and subscribed before me, this 10th day of March, 1851. 

DAVID WEBSTER, Examiner.” 


229 


George Manley , sworn. — Mr. Hirst. —“ What is this to rebut ? We have 
proved that the name of 4 George Manley’ was meant to be 4 George 
Mooney.’ ” 

Mr. Campbell .— 44 On page 67 4 George Manley , broker, No. 963,’ is re¬ 
ferred toby McFall, and George Manley is on the list 963.” 

Mr. Hirst .— 44 1 propose to simply remind your Honors that we gave 
evidence that the voter at 963 was George Mooney.” 

Witness.— u I am a stock broker. I did reside in Ninth street, below 
Fitzwater. I think I left the District in the early part of May last. I did 
not vote there on the last general election, for I did not live in the State. 

I lived in New Jersey.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Hirst. — 44 You did not vote at No. 963?” 

Answer. — 44 1 did not vote at all.” 

Question .— 44 You don’t know whether George Mooney voted there or 
not ?” 

Answer .— 44 No, sir, I don’t know him.” 

John Ralston, sworn. —[989.]— Question. — 44 Do you reside in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing?” 

Answer. — 44 Yes, sir, in Catharine street, between Tenth and Eleventh.” 

Mr. Campbell .— 44 Do not understand that this is one referred to by Mr. 
McFall. I have now come to some not mentioned by him, but on the list.” 

Objected to by Mr. Hirst. 

Mr. Campbell. — 44 I would ask my learned friend to call his remaining 
witnesses. I will withdraw those not mentioned by Mr. McFall. I want 
to examine one witness more, and then, I think, I will close.” 

John Donald, svwrn. — Mr. Campbell. — 44 1 propose to prove, by this 
gentleman, with the utmost accuracy, the time at which Mr. Landon 
voted. I proved it by Mr. Landon, in the first instance. Evidence has been 
given to assail that, and I have now evidence which enables me to fix, 
with entire accuracy, the time he voted.” 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 It is objected to.” 

Judge King.— 44 The Court can see no reason why it should be ex¬ 
cluded.” 

Witness .— 44 1 was at the polls in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the 
last general election. I saw Mr. Landon there, and had a conversation 
with him.” 

Question. — 44 What took place at the time, and what circumstances 
enable you to fix the time ?” 

Answer. — 44 There was another person with us at the time; we were 
talking about the Congress ticket. I turned round to look for Mr. Landon, 
and he was gone, and I saw him at the polls, as if voting. I can’t say if 
he voted.” 

Question .— 44 What did the gentleman by your side do V* 


230 


Answer. “ I can’t tell it, unless I mention conversation. He pulled 
out his watch, and said to me—.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ Never mind that.” 

Question .—“ Was this morning or evening?” 

Answer —“ It was in the evening. This gentleman pulled out his 
watch and looked at it. I saw it was a watch. I saw the face of the 
watch, but I could not tell the time—it was not close enough to me. I 
could not tell what the watch said it was.” 

Question .—“ Can you tell me, independent of this watch, what time of 
night it was?” 

Answer .—“ It was twenty-one minutes of 10 o’clock.” 

Question .—“ Was there a crowd of people at the windows voting ?” 

Answer .—“ There were a number of persons there, but not voting. I 
suppose there might be from 30 to 50 around the window. There was 
very little voting. There was voting off and on.” 

Cross-examined. — Question .—“ What part of the street did you stand 
in ?” 

Answer .—“ I stood something like six or seven feet from the window, 
on the pavement.” 

Question .—“ Who told you it was twenty-one minutes of 10 ?” 

Answer .—“This person I was talking to.” 

Question .—“ Where did he get his information from ?” 

Answer .—“ From his watch.” 

Samuel Johnson , sworn. — Question .—“ Did you make diligent search 
in Bedford street, for a man named Samuel Mullegrew ?” 

Answer .—“I did, sir. I searched from Seventh up to Eighth, on both 
sides of the way, and could find no such person living there, nor any trace • 
of such a person ?” 

Cross-examined .—“ I am one of the Marshal’s police. I am a lieutenant* 

I think I made this search on Friday night. I suppose I was a half or 
thr^e-quartersof an hour. I did not consult the Marshal of Police. I went 
at the request of Mr. Reed.” 

William C. Kernan , Jr , sworn. — Question .—“ Did you ever reside in 
Second Ward, Moyamensing ?” 

Answer .—“I did sir, at No. 14 Flower street, above Catharine. I left 
there about this time last March. I am the son of the gentleman who was 
examined. I did not vote in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the last 
election. I voted in North Mulberry Ward.” 

John M. Butler , sworn .—“ My place of business is at Sixth and Chesnut 
streets, Hart’s building. I resided in Second Ward, Moyamensing, at the 
last general election.” 

Question .—“ Were you at the polls at any time with Mr. Ashton that 
day? 

Answer .—“ No, sir, not with Mr. Ashton. I was there at about eight 
o’clock, in the evening of that day. I resided at Tenth andFitzwater.” 

Question .—“ Were there many persons voting at that time?” 


231 


Answer. —“ No, sir. There were none at that time. It was as near 8 
o’clock as I can remember. We generally sit down to tea at half-past 
seven, at that season, and I think we were a little longer at the table than 
usual that evening, talking matters of politics. I rose from the table and 
came to the polls. I think it might have been ten minutes past eight. I 
was struck with the quiet that prevailed at the polls, there were three or 
four or five on the upper side of the window, and two or three persons 
below the window. Albert B. Ashton was in conversation with Alderman 
Fletcher, about twelve feet from the window, and I think there was not 
then twelve person within fifty yards of the polls. I stood on the pave¬ 
ment opposite about ten minutes, and during that time I saw two persons 
go up to the window, whether they voted or were in conversation with the 
officers inside, I can’t say. I mentioned the circumstance the next morn¬ 
ing to Mr. Ashton.” 

Cross-examined, by Mr, Hirst. — u You voted at that place 

Answer. — a No, sir ; I did not vote.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I close here, reserving the right to explain the mis¬ 
take in North Mulberry Ward.” 

Mr. Tyler , read on behalf of the respondent the deposition of Dr* 
Thomas Rutter. 

DEPOSITION. 

The deposition of Dr. Thomas Rutter , a witness on behalf of the Re¬ 
spondent, taken by consent, at his residence, on Saturday afternoon, 
March 8, 1851, on account of his sickness, and his inability to leavm his 
room. Mr. H. J. Horn appears for Respondent; Wm. B. Mann for Con¬ 
testant. The witness is first sworn by Alderman Henry Simpson, and 
deposes and says as follows :— 

“ 1 was at the Eastern District of Penn at the last general election, 
during the whole of the day, except the absence occasioned by my going 
over to the other Precinct. I went over to the other Precinct two or 
three times, and it took me about fifteen or twenty minutes each time. 
It strikes me that I was at the Eastern Precinct before the opening of the 
polls; that is my impression, but I am not positive. I remained there 
until the closing of the election. I went there as a Sheriff ’s deputy. I 
had no particular station. I was sometimes in and sometimes out, but 
pretty much inside. I have no recollection when the poll was opened. 
I do not know what officer took the tickets. I observed the manner in 
which the tickets were taken. It was the customary manner. When a 
voter presented his vote, after being found to be correct, it was put in the 
box. The lids of the boxes were not entirely taken off. Tnere was 
barely room to drop the ticket in. There were clerks keeping the 
lists, writing the names down, as the persons voted. There were 
present, as officers, the two Inspectors, the Clerks, and Judge; also, 
the Assessor or Collector, I don’t know which. I think Gaul was his 
name. I have no recollection that there was more than one officer out of 
the room at a time. They had their piovisions brought into the room to 
them. I don’t know at what hour the polls closed. It was either eight or 
ten o’clock. It was the hour, I know, specified by law; I think ten 
o’clock. I remained there some time after the polls were closed. I staid 
there long enough to know what the general result was likely to be. I 
did not see them seal the boxes. I did not wait long enough for that. It 


232 


strikes me that it was near twelve o’clock. I left as soon as the polls 
were closed—they shut up the lids of the boxes ; for I know that as 
soon as the polls were closed they shut up the lids of the boxes and took 
something to eat. As soon as they finished eating they commenced count¬ 
ing off. They emptied one box at a time, and counted them in that way. 
I don’t recollect the ticket first counted. I waited until one ticket was 
counted. The tickets were assorted by the officers. Those for one can¬ 
didate were put in a pile, those for another candidate were put in another 
pile. When thatwas finished they counted them off in tens, and credited 
each candidate for the amount. I think, if I am not mistaken, one of the 
inspectors opened them, read them, and handed them to the other; he 
read them and handed them to the judge, who rolled them up in tens. I 
think that was the mode. I am not certain whether it was the judge or 
inspector that rolled them up in tens. The clerks, during this time, set by 
until the account was given and entered it. I have no recollection that 
they interfered with the tickets. When the tickets were thus twisted, 
and all was done, they were placed again in the box. When the polls 
were closed, the boxes were laying in the same position they had been 
all day, perhaps piled up, one upon another, to give the officers more room 
to eat their supper, but I have no distinct recollection. The doorkeeper 
was in occasionally. I think Mr. Abraham Olwine was there a few 
minutes. I think Captain Tustin was there a few minutes. Except the 
officers, the judge, inspectors, clerks and assessor, no one else interfered 
with the election, or in taking the tickets, or boxes. During the election, 
nor after the election, no one interfered with the boxes or the tickets in 
them, and the officers only to count them off, after the polls were closed. 
I think I could have seen any change or interference, unless it was done 
very slyly. I saw nothing of the kind, nor any thing improper in any 
way. I am a distant relative of Wm. B. Reed. 

Cross-examined by Wm. B. Mann , Esq .—“ I was inside the polls at the 
time of closing it. I think all the officers were present at that time. I 
don’t recollect who proposed to take supper before counting off. Imme¬ 
diately after the polls were closed, the supper was brought in. That was 
a previous arrangement. The supper was placed on the end of the table 
where the clerks had been writing. We stood up. I partook of the supper. 
The officers were close by the boxes. They were in no particular place. 
They were about the room, backward and forward, eating. I do not think 
tickets could have been placed in the boxes while the officers were eating. 
The lids were closed. It would have to be done very slyly, if done at 
all. I can’t say that I was watching. The officers may have been en¬ 
gaged in eating fifteen minutes, or more, before they commenced counting. 

I don’t know what ticket they counted first, nor second. I don’t know 
the result of the ticket they counted first, nor what the majority was. I 
think they only counted the tickets of one of the boxes, when I lelt. The 
Inspectors and Judge took the tickets of the box I saw counted. The 
clerks tallied. I was standing about the end of the table pretty much all 
the time. I cannot tell that the names on the tickets which they read 
off were what they represented them to be. I had not my spectacles on, 
and I could not see the names. The tickets, before they counted into tens’ 
were put in piles. I had my spectacles on then, and could see that they 
assorted them into piles, I believe correctly. I cannot recollect the rela¬ 
tive size of the piles. I did not think at the time. I think there was 
not so great a disproportion between them. I have no idea what the result 


233 


was, nor do I know what ticket was counted off. Gaul was back and for¬ 
ward, in and out occasionally, but when I left, he was in the room. 

Re-examined by Mr. Horn .—“ In speaking of the disproportion of the 
tickets, I do not speak of any particular ticket. Mr. Berrell was there 
in the course of the day. occasionally. 

THOS. RUTTER.” 

“ Taken and subscribed before me, this 8th day of March, 1851. 

DAVID WEBSTER, Examiner ” 

Alexander Wand , sworn.—Question .— “Are you acquainted with 
Anthony Elton.” 

Answer. —“ I knew him thirty years ago, and up to the period of his 
death.” 

Question.— Do you know another Anthony Elton?” 

Answer. —“ While I lived in Fitzwater street, below Ninth, there was . 
a young man of that name that I have a lilfle remembrance of-^-he was of 
slight make. I have not seen him for a long period of time.” 

Question. —“ Do you know a Mr. Barton ?” 

Answer .—•“ I know the one examined here, and I have a knowledge of 
<3ne who lived next door to me when I lived opposite to the hall, and it 
struck me that he was the person who voted.” 

Question. —“Do you know John C. Montgomery?” 

Answer. —“ I know him very well.” 

Question. —“ Do you know whether he voted for or against Mr. Reed?” 

Answer. —“ I do not, sir ; but I presume he did not, from a speech he 
made a few nights ago, at the Hall, at a large public meeting, at his own 
expense, and I judge from that. 

Question. —“ Do you know Richard Harred?” 

Answer .—“ When I first moved into Moyamensing I knew him.” 

Question. —“ Could he recollect who he voted for ten minutes after¬ 
wards ?” 

Answer .— e< I was surprised to see him alive. I thought he was dead 
before this time. He is a man of that description, from my knowledge of 
him, that he will vote at any poll, and think he had a right. He is a 
very infirm man, and would not do a bad act knowingly. 

Question. —“ Is his memory utterly gone, so that he could not recollect 
what he did, five minutes afterwards.” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir.” 

Cross-examined. — Question. — " When did you last see him before you 
saw him in Court ?” 

Answer _“ Eighteen or twenty years ago.” 

Question.— (( Where did Barton live ?” 

Answer.—“ Opposite the Hall, in Second Ward, Moyamensing. He 
lived there some two or three weeks before the election, when I moved 

away*” 

30 


234 . 


Question. —“ Do you know whether a delegate election was held in 
Moyamensing Hall, shortly before the last General Election V 

Objected to by Mr . Hirst. 

Question. —“ What is the first name of the Barton who lived next door 
to you ?” 

Answer. —“ I am not certain of his first name, this other Barton is a 
relative of his, and visited the house. I did not vote in Second Ward. 
I moved a short time previous to the election into Fourth Ward. I didn’t 
vote for Mr. Reed or Mr. Kneass, either one.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ With the exception of evidence strictly responsive to 
what has occurred this morning, I close, and if your honors will give us 
an hour, or a half hour on Friday, we will close the testimony.” 

Judge King.— “I want the ballots for District Attorney counted, in 
Second Ward Moyamensing, and the Eastern Precinct of Penn.” 

Mr. John Williams, Clerk of the Court, is to count them in the presence 
of one of the Counsel from each side. 

Adjourned to meet on Friday next, at 4, P. M. 


Friday, March 14, 1851.—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

Mr. John Williams makes the following report:— 

41 To the Honorable, the Judges of the Court of Quarter Sessions : 

“ We, the undersigned, having been appointed to count the ballots for 
District Attorney in the Second Ward, Moyamensing, and the Eastern 
precinct of the District of Penn, having performed the duties of said ap¬ 
pointment, would respectfully submit the following as the result of said 
count: 

Second Ward , Moyamensing . 


Horn R. Kneass, had 

- 

- 

1091 

votes. 

William B. Reed, 

_ _ 

_ 

98 

a 

William R. Dickerson, - 

_ 


31 

u 

Peter A. Browne, 

- 

- 

1 

vote. 




1221 


Eastern Precinct of the District of Penn. 



Horn R. Kneass, had 

•» mm 


377 

votes. 

William B. Reed, 

— _ 


53 

u 

Wm. R. Dickerson, 

- 

- 

32 

u 




462 



March 14th, 1851. JOHN WILLIAMS. 

The above was the result of the count which took place in our presence. 


WILLIAM B. MANN. 
HENRY J. HORN.” 





235 


JWr. Williams. —“ There were some notes that I took at the time. Two 
of the county tickets were folded with two blanks in. There was one 
blank, with a portion of yellow paper on it, appearing to have had the 
name of Mr. Kneass on it, included in a bundle of ten, nine of which were 
for Mr. Kneass—that was not counted. There were 25 Whig tickets, 
with Mr. Dickerson’s name on them. This is in Second Ward, Moya- 
mensing. Twenty-two of the above were scratched, and the remainder 
with Mr. Dickerson’s name originally printed on them. Six Democratic 
tickets had Mr. Dickerson’s name on them originally. One Whig ticket 
had Peter A. Browne’s name on it. Two Whig tickets with Kneass’s 
name on, scratched. Two Whig tickets, the name obliterated. Two 
Democratic tickets, with Reed’s name on, Kneass’s having been obliterated. 
Two bundles of Mr. Kneass’s tickets, with 11 in each. Two bundles of 
Mr. Kneass’s tickets, with 9 in each. Three bundles with 9 Kneass tickets 
and one Reed ticket in each. One bundle, 9 for Kneass and one State 
officer. One bundle, 8 for Kneass and one for Reed. In the Eastern 
precinct of the District of Penn, Mr. Dickerson had 15 votes on the Whig 
ticket, and 17 on the Democratic. In two bundles of Kneass’s, there were 
9 of Kneass’s, and one of Reed’s. In one other bundle, there were 9 for 
Kneass, and one for Dickerson. In one other bundle, there were 4 for 
Mr. Kneass, and 6 for Mr. Reed.” 

Mr. Wurteim, re-called .— Question. — “ Describe Jacob Mayland ?” 

Answer .— “ He was about the middle height, about five feet six or six 
and a half. His hair was about the color of Mr. Tyler’s, it may be lighter. 
I could not say he was stout. I suppose he would weigh about 140 pounds.” 

Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell.—Question .—“ Did he ever go by any 
other name than Mayland 

Answer. —“Not that I know or ever heard of; he used to go with oyster 
carts. Some years ago, Mr.-Clair and a good many used to send them out 
in the morning, and they would run away with the money at night, and 
they were taken to the Alderman’s and sent to prison. - That is the reason 
I happen to know him so.” 

Mr. Tyler reads the deposition of the subscribing witness to the Coro¬ 
ner’s inquest. 

• 

Alderman Evans , sworn. — “ The box for the Eastern precinct of the 
District of Penn, was deposited with me by the officers of the election. 
When I received it, it was perfectly sound and tight. I took particular 
notice of it when it was left in my charge, there was nothing of these joints 
being open then, and when delivered by me to the Sheriff it was perfectly 
closed. I could not get the point of a knife in it. I would not have re¬ 
ceived it in this condition without having the officers present, and let them 
examine in what condition it was. I have objected to receiving boxes like 

that.” 

Question. —“ Is it your practice to observe the condition in which boxes 
come to you ?” 

Answer. —“I have made objection before now, without calling the 
attention of the officers of the election to examine it before taking it in 
charge. I refused to receive a box once before, till they examined it. 


236 


Mr. Hirst .— i( You observe that you can now lift this lid up without 
pulling it out'?” 

Witness. —“ Yes, sir. It fit perfectly tight when delivered to tha 
Sheriff. The Sheriff called upon me the other day to find out the box. I 
went to his house and he pointed them out in the cellar. I had my own 
mark upon it and I selected it. I examined it when he took it out of the 
cellar. The bottom parts were sprung off a little. It was perfectly tight 
at the top—not in this condition at all. The bottom of the boxes were 
opened, but the tops were perfectly tight when the Sheriff took it up to 
bring it here.” 

Question. —“ Were all the other boxes in the cellar'?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir. There were some two or three cart loads of them 
there. When they came for mine they came in the evening. I did not 
see how they went away.” 

Cross-examined. —“The Sheriff took the boxes from my place. I put 
my seal on it. I found the seal in the same condition, and the box in the 
same condition, the other day, except the bottom was sprung a little. It 
was a little damp towards the bottom. The top was perfectly sound. I 
think that was on the 10th or 11th of this month. 


Samuel Bardeer , recalled. — Mr. Hirst. —“Look at this box and state 
what condition it was in when you last saw it, at the election V 9 

Answer. —“ It appeared to be quite tight, so that they had to shove the 
lid to get it on. I assisted in counting the tickets.” 

Question. — u Was any bundle put into that box and counted as ten, 
with four of Kneass’ name and six of Reed’s V 9 


Answer. —“ Not to my counting. Manson and I both counted. We 
sat opposite to one another. He counted and I counted, except when we 
came to scratched tickets, and we laid them to one side, and afterwards 
Manson called out as he read off. I examined carefully every ticket I 
counted.” 


Question. —“ Are you positive that you did not count a bundle with 
four in it for Mr. Kneass and six for Mr. Reed?” 


Answer. —“ Yes, sir, as to my counting.” 

Question .—“ How did the officers sit at the table when they counted 
the tickets V 9 


Answer. “ At the head sat the judge, next the two clerks, and next to 
the window the two inspectors. While they were counting the tickets 
the clerks were putting them down as we called them out. ° Mr. Binder 
sat on my right and Dr. Manson opposite to me.” 

Question. —« Did you see every ticket you counted over V 9 


Answer .—“ Yes, sir, and read them all and 
fully.” 


counted the votes care- 


Cross-examined. — Question. —“ Who wrote the tally lists P> 

Aota “ The Clerks- We suns out the n « m bers and they set them 


Question .—“Who wrote the headings V 9 


237 


Answer. —“ I did not see them written, but I suppose each one wrote 
them for himself.” 

Question .— u How many tally lists had you V ’ 

Answer .—“ I can’t tell.” 

Question .— <c Was there a mistake made in the first set which made it 
necessary to correct them'?” 

Answer .—“ Not that I know of—I did not hear them say anything 
about it—I did not hear anything of the kind, if it was so, it was not in 
my hearing or seeing.” 

Question. —“ Whose hand-writing is that V 9 [One of the tally lists.] 

Answer. —“ I am not acquainted with the hand writing, and can’t tell 
whether it is Mr. Binder’s or John Hyneman’s.” 

Question. —“ Why didn’t you sign that paper?” 

Answer .— " I signed all the papers that were handed to me to sign.” 

Question. — u Whose hand-writing is this return for the office of District 
Attorney V 9 

Answer .—“ That looks to me like Mr. Binder’s.” 

Re-examined. — Mr. Hirst. —“ The paper you did not sign—is it custom¬ 
ary for inspectors to sign the clerk’s tally lists ?” 

Answer. —“ I never did it before, and I never knew it done before.” 

Question. — u You signed all the inspector’s returns ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes sir—there are a good many of them there—I believe I 
signed all that was necessary.” 

Binder , recalled.— Question.—“ What was the condition of that box 
when you had it on election day ?” 

Answer. —“ I believe it was perfectly tight. I sat alongside of Mr. 
Bardeer during the count, and 1 saw whether he counted accurately. I 
watched him all the time, on account of his eyesight not being good. He 
counted correctly.” 

Question. — u Was any bundle there counted ten, with four in it for Mr. 
Kneass and six for Mr. Reed V 9 

Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge.” 

Question. —“ Have you any doubt about it V 9 

Answer. —I have not the least doubt about that.” 

Cross-examined.—Question— “ Who made the tally lists for the clerks?” 

Answer. — u I made my own, I believe. One of these is in the hand¬ 
writing of JohnK. Hyneman, and the other is mine.” 

Question. — i4 Did you both make them out at the same time ?” 

Answer. — a I think we did. We began to make out the tally lists after 
the polls were closed.” 

Question.— u Did you carry them out both at the same time ?” 

Answer.— After we got the whole amount from the judge, then we put 
them down. We put down the amounts as they were called off from the 


238 


judge. We both wrote at the same time, both lists were kept at the same 
time. I kept but one tally list.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ You never saw any other 

Answer. —“ None but what Mr. Hyneman had; these were all that I 
saw in the room.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“That is the only tally list you kept for the office of 
District Attorney, after that election!” 

Answer .—“ That is the only one I kept, to the best of my knowledge, 
I don’t recollect of copying two tally lists. I think I only had this one.” 

Question .—“ Do you recollect writing on more than one !” 

Answer. —“ I can’t be positive as to that.” 

Question. —“ What makes you doubt on that subject!” 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect having more than this one is why I doubt 
it. I might possibly have had another one, but I don’t recollect it.” 

Question. —“ How could you have another !” 

Answer. —“That is more than I can say, for I have no recollection of 
copying more than one. I have no recollection of writing on more than 
one. I might possibly have carried that from another one, but I don’t 
recollect it. If I did, the papers are all here, for there were no papers 
destroyed.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Then you can’t be positive whether this is the origi¬ 
nal one you wrote on !” 

Answer .—“ I don’t recollect having but one. I think this is the origi¬ 
nal. If there was more than one they are here.” 

Question .—“ Did you sign two tally lists !” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, I did not. All the papers I had in my possession 
were put in the box.” 

Question .—“ Did you ever see more than these two tally lists for 
County officers!” 

Answer. —“ I don’t recollect. I did not, to the best of my recollection. 
I am not positive whether there were two or not, but I don’t recollect of 
having more than one, or seeing more than these two. I am not positive.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You are very positive about a count of four ballots 
in a bundle of ten; can’t you be as positive as to whether you put your 
pen to paper to mark another count for District Attorney besides that!” 

Answer .—“ I can’t bring my mind to think there was more than one. 
We might possibly have had another one.” 

Question .—“ If you had what became of it.” 

Answer. —“ They are all here. The papers were all kept by the judge, 
and if I was scribbling on any papers they are all here.” 

Question .—“ Why didn’t you sign them!” 

Answer. —“I did not know they were to be signed. It was the first 
time I was ever an officer of election.” 

Question. —“ Didn’t Hyneman mention to you to sign it!” 

Answer .—“No, sir.” 




239 


Re-exajnined. — Question .—“ Would you have had any objection to 
signing it V 9 • J J 

Answer _“ No, sir.” 

Question. u Are you positive that the papers you had went to the 
boxes or bundles?” 

Answer .— ££ Yes, sir. Nothing was retained or suppressed by me.” 

Dr. Manson, recalled.—Question.—“ What was the condition of that 
box when you saw it at the election ?” 

Answer .— ££ Perfectly tight.” 

Question .— ££ Was there room to get in an instrument or a finger ?” 

Answer .— ££ No, sir.” 

Question .— ££ Who sat alongside of you when you were counting?” 

Answer .—“ Mr. Iiyneman and Mr. Bardeer sat opposite to me. I as¬ 
sisted in counting the tickets for District Attorney. They were counted 
accurately and carefully. I am positive of that—those that I counted.” 

Question .— ££ Did you put up any bundle of ten, with four tickets with 
Kneass 5 name on them, and six with Reed’s ?” 

Answer .— ££ No, sir. I have not the least doubt about it.” 

Mr. Binder , re-called. — Cross-examined. — Question .— ££ If you tallied 
together all along, how was it one gave John Robbins 369 and the other 
gave him 371 V 9 

Answer .— ££ I believe there were several times that we differed one or 
two votes, and that is the way the correction had to be made sometimes. 

I believe mine is correct and his is a mistake. We tallied together.” 

Re-examined .— ££ We both took down figures at the same time ; one was 
on one side of the table, and one on the other side. After we had the 
whole number of votes, the total was made out, and if there was any differ¬ 
ence, where it was only one or two, the corrections were made.” 

Dr. Manson , continued. — Question .— ££ Did any one count the tickets 
but you and Mr. Bardeer V 9 

Answer .— ££ I am not positive, I think that the two clerks assisted.” 

Question .— ££ How were the tickets for District Attorney arranged ?” 

Answer .— ££ The three candidates were laid in piles by themselves, and 
the scratched tickets were thrown into the box and then afterwards emptied 
out. We counted the boxes one by one. The piles were counted by us. 
I examined every ticket that went up on my side of the house.” 

John K. Hyneman re-called .— Question .— ££ What was the condition of 
that box when you had it on election day V 9 

Answer ,— ££ Perfectly tight and safe.” 

Question .— ££ Where did you sit?” 

Answer .— ££ By the side of Dr. Manson, and saw the tickets counted on 
my side of the table. They were counted correctly. When the box was 
emptied, they were laid off in separate piles; one pile was for Kneass, 
one for Reed, and the other scratched tickets and for Dickerson.” 


240 


Question. —“ Was there any bundle done up there with six tickets for 
Reed and four for Kneass?” 

Answer. —“ Not on our side there was not.” 

Cross-examined. — Question. —How many tally lists did you write on 
that night for the office of District Attorney ?” 

Answer. —Only one, I believe. I have no doubt of it. To the best of 
my recollection, I only saw these two tally lists for the office of District 
Attorney that night.” 

Question. —“ Did you see any other tally list commenced but these 
two ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, I think not. I am almost positive there was no 
other paper or tally list written on or commenced, for the office of Dis¬ 
trict Attorney in that room.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ You wrote no other'?” 

Answer. —“No, sir.” 

Question. —“Are you sure of that?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge, I did not.” 

Question. —“ Did you write or see any other man write a tally at that 
election, for District Attorney, but these two ?” 

Answer. —“ Not to my recollection.” 

Question. —“Is it a thing you would recollect if you had seen it ?” 

Answer. —“ It is more than likely I would. I cannot speak positively.” 

Question. — (e If you cannot speak positively as to whether you began 
a tally list for District Attorney, how can you speak positively as to the 
count of votes % 

Answer .—“ Because I sat by the side of Dr. Manson, and thought it an 
important matter.” 

Question —“ Didn’t you think it important as to how many tally lists 
there were V 9 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir. If I wrote any other papers they are in that box. 
I don’t recollect writing on any. I won’t say positively I did not. This 
one, with 369 carried out for member of Congress, is mine.” 

Albert B. Ashton , recalled. — Question .—“ Had you conversation with 
J. M. Butler at the polls in Second Ward, Moyamensing V 9 

Answer .—“ I had not. I did not see him there.” 

Question .—“ At 8 o’clock at night, how many were at the polls I” 

Answer .—“ At every time during the evening that my attention was 
directed to the polls there were 150 persons there, judging from my know¬ 
ledge and belief. About 8 o’clock, I was talking to Alderman Fletcher, 
and then there was, I should certainly think, the number I have named 
about the polls.” 

William Deal , recalled. —“ I delivered this box into Court lately. I 
don’t remember the day—whether it was this week or last—it was since 
this case began. I don’t think it was in its present condition then. I 


241 


think I would have noticed it if it was opened as much as that. I did not 
notice the boxes particularly. Col. Town was with me. 

Cross-examined. —“ I got this box from .the Alderman of Penn Dis¬ 
trict. T. B. Town accompanied me to get it. That evening I put it in 
the parlor of my house. I removed it from there to a room next door, 
which had a lock and key on. I had no place in my house to put them 
but in the cellar, and I did not know at that time whether it would be ad¬ 
visable to put them there. I put it in the house of the gentleman living 
next door to me. I have moved from there now. We were only there 
together three or four months. I cannot give the name of the gentleman. 

I did not rent the room of him. He had nobody but himself and wife 
there. He had no use for it. They remained there till he moved. I 
could not tell exactly when that was. My seal and that of the Alderman 
was placed on the box when I got it from the Alderman. I moved them 
into my house, into the cellar. My seal continued on them then and 
when brought to court.” 

Question. — “ Had the box, from the time you received it till you 
brought it here, been opened or altered V 5 

Answer. — “ No., sir—I speak positively as to that.” 

Question. — “ Wasyour’s a damp cellar'?” 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. The bottom of that box was very damp when I 
took it up.” 

Question. —“ Do you see any marks on that wood of violence V’ 

Answer. — u No, sir. I have a number of other boxes in that cellar, and 
I don’t know that any of the others are swelled and shoved in that 
manner.” 

Question. —“Have you removed any of them from that cellar to a dry 
room, in the last few days V 9 

Answer. —•“ No, sir. None were wet but those on the ground floor. I 
have moved them and had them dried in the cellar j they were not out of 
the cellar. I moved them some ten feet from where they were before, 
and put them on another pile. I moved them, I believe, the next day after 
I brought this down. I saw the condition that this was in. I don’t re¬ 
member what day I brought that box to Court. I have been sent after several 
boxes. The Alderman of Penn District was with me when I got this. I 
think it was last week, it was a day that it drizzled rain.” 

Re-examined.— Question.— “ How many other boxes have you delivered 
in Court V 9 

Answer. _“ I delivered two boxes from Penn District, and the box from 

Second Ward, Moyamensing. I was sent for the box in Second Ward, 
Kensington, and I put them in the fire proof, and I this morning brought 
the box°of North Mulberry Ward.” 

y. R m Town , sworn. — Question. —“ Did you accompany the Sheriff to 
collect the County boxes V 9 

Answer.— a I did; he asked me to and I did so. I collected the box from 
Alderman Evans. When I received it, it was perfectly tight and sound. 
I brought that box into Court myself. I examined it. It was sound, with 

31 


242 


the exception of being damp on the bottom. It was not in the condition 
which I now see it.” 

Cross-examined. —“I brought it into Court the day the Sheriff was 
directed to bring it here. I can’t name the day. I think it must ha\c 
been last week. Court was in session when I brought it here. W hen we 
brought it in we laid it on the desk. I remained here until it was handei 
on the table, and you (Mr. Campbell) cut the strings. They were opene 
the same day they were brought here.” 

John Williams affirmed. —“ I am Clerk of this Court.” 

Question. —“ Did you receive this box into your custody from the 
Sheriff'?” 

Answer. —“I did not.” 

Question.— “ When did you first see it V 9 

Answer. —“ I think it was last week. It was after the adjournment 
of the Court. It was taken from here to my office. I think I took it 
myself, or one of the officers here, in connection with some other boxes I 
took in. 

Question. —“Did you seal the box from that time till you counted them 
last Tuesday'?” 

Answer. “ I did not—I put no seal upon it.” 

Question. —“ How many other boxes have you in your possession V 9 

Answer. —“I suppose there are some 12 or 14, that have come from 
the Sheriff. The majority were taken in the day the tickets were counted. 

Question. —“Is any of them parted open but this one'?” 

Answer. —“ I have not examined, but I don’t think there is one parted 
like that. I kept them in the case close by the stove in the front office, 
locked. It is the case on the right hand as you go in, and the stove was 
on the left hand. It is one of the ordinary cases ; it has a common lock 
and key to it. The key was on a bundle of keys that we keep in the 
office. The first boxes I took in. I put the key in my pocket for several 
days, and then I hooked it on to the ring of keys. I think I saw this box in 
Court, directly after its adjournment. I think I was here when the Court 
adjourned. I am not certain of that. I don’t think the box was sealed 
when I opened it to count. I don’t remember whether it was sealed or 
not. It was my impression that it was not. I don’t know that Mr. Corn- 
man has ever carried it into Court. He might have given it to the clerks.” 

Cross-examined. — Question. —“ During the time it has been in your 
custody, is there anything that has induced you to believe that anybody 
has opened it'?” 

Answer. —“Nothing. It has been carefully kept in every respect. It 
has been under lock and key while in my office. The only opportunity 
to open the box was on its way to the office, or here, after the adjourn¬ 
ment of Court. I don’t remember whether I was present at the adjourn¬ 
ment of the Court or not.” 

Question. —“ Who were the officers who have carried it to and fro V 9 

Answer. —“ Mr. Longstreth and Mr. Voneida, at different times. I 




have been along generally when the boxes were carried to and fro. I am 
a carpenter by trade.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“ Look at that box and tell me whether it has ever 
been broken open at the sides'?” 

Answer. — u There don’t appear to have been any violence on the sides. 
I see it is made of poplar, and poplar is a wood that is perhaps more apt 
to spring and curve than most any wood we know, especially when 
damp and then brought into contact with heat.” 

Re-examined. — ‘I would say that that box has been glued, and the 
dampness always destroys the strength of the glue, and when it comes in 
contact with heat it is very apt to warp. This box is of poplar, some are 
of white pine, which are not so apt to curve. I have not observed the 
rest of the boxes.” 

Mr. Hirst. — u If it had been opened by heat, you don’t think it would 
split.” 

Answer. — <C I don’t think it would. It mi^ht by drawing out some of 
the dove tails. A portion ot the glue would still have its force upon the 
dove-tails, the natural operation would be to curve and not to split. I 
have not observed any more splits than those that the heat would cause, a 
small crack. It could not be drawn off by force without splitting it.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ Do you observe these four splits?” [Shows them to him.] 

» 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir. They are very apt to be done by heat. That has 
been retained by the dove-tail.” 

Mr. Hirst. —“ I now offer the returns referring to this election, on file 
in the office of this Court—returns that have been on three separate occa¬ 
sions considered in evidence, but it has been impossible heretofore to finish 
the examination of them. I propose to show that in Third Ward, North¬ 
ern Liberties, there is an evident mistake of ten votes. I propose to show 
that in Fourth Ward, Kensington, there is the same apparent mistake of 
seven at least. I think sixteen, but seven undoubtedly. I propose to 
show that in the simple addition of the general return of the Northern 
Liberties, Mr. Kneass has two less by the return than the figures show. I 
propose to show from the return of Second Ward, Northern Liberties, that 
there is a further mistake of ten votes. I propose to show that in the tally 
list of the Sixth Ward, Kensington, the tens carried out in favor of Mr. 
Reed are more like eights than anything else. I propose to show these 
results, which are self-evident upon the face of the election returns in the 
office.” 

This was objected to by Mr. Campbell, and argued by Mr. Campbell 
and Mr. Brown for the contestants, and Mr. Hirst and Mr. J. M. Read for 
the respondent; after which it was over-ruled by the Court, Judge Camp¬ 
bell dissenting. 

Mr. Hirst asks that the boxes of the city and county of Philadelphia 
be counted as the other two have been. 

Judge King.—“ This is not the time nor the manner of doing it.” 

Judge Campbell. — ce I think that as we have examined two of the boxes, 
you had better examine the whole of them.” 


244 


Judge Kelley.—“I have already expressed my opinion on this subject, 
and the reflection allowed me has not served to change it.” 

Mr. Ilirsl then offered the following pleas ; as embodying the statement 
previously made : 

In the Court of Quarter Sessious of the County of Philadelphia: Sur complaint of 

Samuel Wallington, et als, complaining of the undue election of Horn R. 

Kneass, Esq., to the office of District Attorney of said County. 

And now , Horn R. Kneass, Esq., the party returned as elected to the 
office of District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia, by leave of the 
court, comes and defends, &c., and saith that the said V\ illiam B. Reed 
is not and was not elected to the said office, at &c., and when, &c., as is 
untruly alleged in the said complaint, because this repliant saith that at 
and in the several election polls and districts in the said city and county of 
Philadelphia, at and in the said city and county, at &c., when &.C., a 
greater number of votes, to wit : two thousand were duly and legally 
polled for the said repliant for the said office, than for the said William 
B. Reed, by the electors of the said county at and in the election polls 
and districts aforesaid • and were then and there at &c., duly deposited 
by the election officers, then and there duly acting under the laws of the 
commonwealth, in the respective ballot boxes, provided according to law 
for the proper and safe keeping thereof; and the said repliant avers that 
he was ready here to produce and does produce to the said Court, the said 
ballot boxes and every of them containing the votes, tickets and ballots 
aforesaid, which he prays the Court to receive, and will fully maintain 
and prove the allegation, aforesaid, viz : that the repliant did at the said 
election receive two thousand votes for the said office of District Attor¬ 
ney, over and above the votes then and there polled for the said William 
B. Reed, for the office aforesaid • and this the said repliant is ready to 
verify, whereupon &c. * 

And the said repliant, by leave of the Court, first had and obtained, 
comes, and defends, &c., and saith, the said William B. Reed is not and 
was not elected to the said office at &.C., and when &c., as is untruly alleged 
in this complaint, because he saith that in and by the tally papers and 
election returns, and ballots ot the Third Ward of the Northern Liberties, 
of the said County, it appears that the said William B. Reed, did at the 
election aforesaid, receive 206 votes, and no more, for the said office, 
whereas, the general return officers of the said election have untruly return¬ 
ed that he did receive 216 votes for said office ; and further, that in the 
Fourth Ward, ol the District of Kensington, in the said County, it ajrpears 
that the said Horn R. Kneass did receive 336 votes for the said office, 
whereas the general return officers of the said election, have untruly re¬ 
turned that he did receive 238 votes for the said office. And further,that 
in the District of the Northern Liberties, in said County^ it appears that the 
said Horn R. Kneass did receive 2596 votes for said office, whereas the 
general return officers of the said election have untruly returned that he did 
receive 2594 votes for the said office. And further, that in the Second 
Ward, of the Northern Liberties, of the said County, it appears that the 
said Wm. B. Reed received 202 votes for the said office, whereas, the elec¬ 
tion officers of the said ward have untruly returned that he did receive 212 
votes for the said office. And further, that it appears that in the Sixth 
Ward, of the District of Kensington, in said County, that said Wm. B. 
Reed did receive 315 votes for the said office, whereas, the general return 




245 


officers of the said election, have untruly returned that the said Wm. B. 
Reed did receive 371 votes for the said office ; wherefore, and by reason 
of such irregular return, and false general return, William B. Keed, is not 
and was not elected to the said office, as is untruly alleged in the said com¬ 
plaint 3 all which the said repliant is ready and willing to verify, where¬ 
fore he prays judgment, &c. 

Signed, W.T. HIRST, 

Attorney for Horn R. Kneass , 

*March 14, 1851. 

And the said Horn R. Kneass comes into Court and denies and traverses 
all and every matter and thing in the said complaint alleged, and alleges 
that the same and every part thereof is false and untrue; wherefore he 
prays judgment, &c. 

Signed, W. L. HIRST, 

Attorney for Horn R. Kneass. 

Motion to the Court. —First. For leave to file the pleas. Second. To 
exhibit and count the ballots in all the boxes, referred to in the first pea. 
Third. To give in evidence the tally papers and returns of the Districts 
named in the second plea. 

Signed, W. L. HIRST, 

Attorney for Horn R. KneaiSo 

March 14, 1851. 

Adjourned to meet on Wednesday next, at 10 o’clock, A. M. 


Wednesday, March 19,1851.—Court met again at 10 o’clock, A. M. 

OPINION OF JUDGE KING. 

In the plea or suggestion which has been presented by Mr. Kneass, the 
respondent, are embraced two propositions, which I shall consider sepa¬ 
rately, the better to render my opinion on each clear and precise. 

The first amounts to a demand, that a re-count of the ballot boxes of 
all the election districts of the city and county, shall be ordered by the 
court; from which the respondent supposes he may be able to show that 
he has actually received more votes than have been given to him by the 
return officers, and that Mr. Reed has received less. No specific allega¬ 
tion is preferred in the suggestion of the existence of fraud or mistake in 
the count of any particular ballot box. The allegation in the suggestion 
that such account will show that Mr. Kneass received two thousand votes 
more than were actually returned as given to him, is admitted to be merely 
formal as to the number, and he has positively declined making an oath 
or affirmation that the official count of the boxes is erroneous to that or 
any greater or less extent. The suggestion, therefore, stripped of form, 
amounts to a simple requisition that we shall order a recount of all the 
city and county ballot boxes; the object of such recount, being mani¬ 
festly an experiment, to ascertain whether it will present a more favora- 



246 


ble aspect to the respondent than is exhibited by the official returns. Such 
a thing is inadmissible, ns well on clear principle as on established pre¬ 
cedent. The duty of this Court is not that of a Board of Canvassers, 
required to verify from the actual ballots deposited the accuracy of the 
returns of votes made by the return judges. Although such a public 
body may be greatly to be desired, and might be highly useful, yet we 
have no authority to assume its functions. Our duties are to examine 
into the existence of specified frauds and irregularities charged as nulli¬ 
fying the apparent result of an election return. Our powers, although 
analogous to those of a legislative committee, still being given to the 
Court, are to be judicially exercised. Precision and accuracy are the 
vital elements of all judicial forms. Without these the doings of courts 
would be a mass of unintelligible crudities. 

The authority given us by law is to inquire into the “ undue election 
and false return” of certain elective officers. The returns of such election, 
made by the officers, charged by law with conducting them, are to be re¬ 
ceived as true until the contrary is shown. Every fair presumption is to 
be made in their favor. These are fundamental principles applicable to 
all sworn officers. Is it too much to require from a party who seeks to 
assail such returns, a precise statement, authenticated by oath, of the 
grounds of fact on which he impeaches the doings of hundreds of sworn 
public agents as represented in such returns? Shall we permit any party 
discontented with them to appeal from all the returns to all the ballot 
boxes, without requiring him to distinctly point out in which of them and 
from what cause there is fraud or error? This would indeed be treating 
the election as if it had never taken place, and regarding the returns thereof 
as carrying with them neither force nor efficacy. Ought not he who de¬ 
sires to search into a ballot box to give other reason therefor, than his mere 
wish to do so, in the hope of finding something that may enure to his own 
advantage ? Surely, the answers to these propositions must present them¬ 
selves to a calm and unbiased mind the moment they are stated. And 
must not the answers be, that the sworn returns are the official expression 
of the doings of each and every election poll; and that the contents of 
every ballot box must be presumed to be truly expressed by the return 
thereof; and that he who would impeach a general return, must not do so 
by vague generalities and sweeping charges, but ought to say as precisely 
as the nature of the case would admit of, in which ballot box lies the fraud or 
error, and in what does it consist? It is said that we are acting with the 
power of a Legislative Committee, and that, therefore, our course should 
be more liberal, than in proceedings strictly judicial. Admitting this, 
would any Legislative Committee grant such a request as is here made? 
Suppose the election of a Governor of this Commonwealth to be contested 
for specific causes assigned in the petition, would a Legislative Committee, 
alter inquiring into the assigned causes of complaint, accord to either party 
a general ransacking of all the ballot boxes of the State, in order to give 
such party the chances of finding something favorable to his particular 
views, and that without his averring the existence of any particular fraud 
or mistake in any particular election district ? If such a request should 
be weakly acceded to, the probable result is quite apparent. 

The long period which must necessarily intervene between the holding 
of a general election, and the arrival of the time for contesting its results', 
would afford a terrible opportunity to deal with the thousands of ballot 
boxes scattered over the whole State. Besides, if no particular ballot box 



247 


is assailed, how could a party interested be prepared to defend the returns 1 
It could only be after something apparently wrong was found in the gene¬ 
ral search in some particular box, that it could be known that it was in¬ 
tended to be assailed, lime must then be given to rebut the apparent, by 
showing the true state of things. And thus an election contest would 
have no apparent point of termination. No more ingenious mode could be 
de.vised to invite fraud than such looseness of procedure ; and once esta¬ 
blished, a flood of evil would inevitably rush in, which those having the 
most acute foresight can hardly estimate the extent of. All this°is to 
some extent avoided by simply requiring that he who desires to scrutinize 
into the contents of ballot boxes should first say on oath precisely what 
he expects to find in each of them, incompatible with the returns founded 
upon them. This will prevent the consequences which might flow 
from authorizing such a scrutiny from a mere speculative notion of irre¬ 
gularity or fraud, and will give notice to all parties interested or impli¬ 
cated, of what is charged against the integrity of the boxes indicated, and 
enable them to come prepared to meet the imputations cast. 

On authority, the inadmissibility of the respondent’s demand is equally 
clear. The principles which now regulate this Court on the trial of con¬ 
tested elections, were first announced in the cases of Alderman Boileau, 
Prothonotary Skerrett and Sheriff Lelar. The Court in these cases de¬ 
clared that thereafter they would require of all contestants of elections, 
that charges impeaching such elections, should be precise, accurate and 
tangible; and that vague generalities in such charges would lead to their 
rejection. It is unnecessary here to repeat the process of reasoning which 
led to this result. It will be found fully elaborated in the opinion de¬ 
livered by me in Skerrett’s case. In that case it was stated, among other 
things in the petition, “ that William Sloanaker had been duly elected, as 
would appear by recounting the tickets or ballots voted by the qualified 
electors.” In observing on this, I remarked that, “ if the Judges of any 
particular district through fraud or mistake, had miscounted the votes given 
to any candidate, &c., it was easy to say so, designating where and how.” 
That “ it would be intolerable if this or any other Court should entertain 
a complaint impugning in a sweeping declaration all the actings and doings 
of a whole county election, without containing any intimation as to 
where, how and by whom such malversations had been perpetrated.” 
This petition was dismissed for insufficiency and want of precision. In 
Lelar’s case, the contestants stated on oath, that they believed William 
Deal to have been fairly elected, and this would appear by a recount of the 
ballots, which had been incorrectly counted, and that Henry Lelar had 
not as many votes for the said office of Sheriff as William Deal. 

The re-count, which promised such results, was refused to Mr. Deal, 
and this because of the generality of the allegation of errors in the official 
count, and the absence of anything which intimated where and in what 
ballot box the errors complained of existed. In the very case before us, 
the contestants in the petition originally filed, set forth, “that there was 
not a true return of the number of votes cast respectively for Horn R. 
Kneass and William B. Reed, and that on a re-count of the tickets con¬ 
tained in the ballot boxes , which the petitioners prayed might be ordered, 
it would appear that a majority of said votes were cast for William B. 
Reed, and not for Horn R. Kneass, and that the ballots for District Attor¬ 
ney had been incorrectly counted in the different districts of the city and 
county of Philadelphia, and that four hundred and upv^ards had been 


248 


counted for Horn R. Kneass and included in the returns made, which were 
not given for him, but for William B. Reed.” These specifications were 
sworn to by two of the petitioners. And yet this Court struck out the 
specifications from the petition as inadmissible to proof, and refused the 
re-count prayed for, because they did not locate the poll in which the 
alleged false count took place, and because a re-count so demanded was 
inadmissible, according to our past decisions. We are now required to 
order,a re-count of all the ballot boxes at the instance of Mr. Kneass, 
on a demand, subject to the same exceptions as those that induced 
the refusal of a re-count to Mr. Reed. And this on an application 
stating a mere formal number of votes as having been omitted to be counted 
to Mr. Kneass, which Mr. Kneass, with manifest propriety, refuses to as¬ 
sert on his oath, to be true in fact to the best of his knowledge and belief. 

Jf Mr. Reed was refused a re-count of all the ballot boxes in order to 
impeach the returns in favor of Mr. Kneass, how can this Court, with 
any regard to consistency, grant this application to Mr. Kneass, in order to 
enable him to assail the returns favorable to Mr. Reed. Besides, Mr. 
Kneass makes this demand on allegations which he is unwilling to support 
by an oath as to his belief of their correctness, while these contestants 
were refused it, although two of them swore that an error would be found, 
on a re-count, of four hundred votes in favor of Mr. Reed. It may, in¬ 
deed, be said that our past decisions were made with reference to the pro¬ 
per form in which petitioners contesting an election should present them¬ 
selves, and do not embrace the case of a respondent answering such peti¬ 
tion. But the proposed re-count does not refer to the particular polls 
charged as false and fraudulent in the petition, in which a re-count of 
those particular polls would be part and parcel of the very subject of in¬ 
quiry. The defence, in respect to the demand for a general re-count of 
all the boxes, is, in fact, an attack on the accuracy of the returns in favor 
of Mr. Reed. The attilude of the parties in this aspect of the case is 
changed. Mr. Kneass, instead of the defender, becomes the assailant of 
the official returns. And, surely, he should be bound by the same rules 
which operated upon his opponent when he occupied an analagous posi¬ 
tion. 

On principle, on precedent, as well as from every consideration of judi¬ 
cial consistency, it seems clear to my judgment that the first suggestion 
filed should be overruled. 

• % 

The second suggestion filed by the respondent is of a different character 
and much more worthy of regard. It asserts in precise terms that, by the 
tally list, election returns and ballots, of the Second Ward, of the Northern 
Liberties, it appears that Win. B. Reed received at the election 206 votes 
for the office of District Attorney ; whereas the return officers have untruly 
returned that he had received 216 votes. That in Fourth Ward, Kensington, 
it appears that Horn R. Kneass received 336 votes; whereas the return 
officers untruly returned that he had received 238 votes. That in the Dis¬ 
trict of the Northern Liberties it appears that Horn R. Kneass received 
2596 votes; whereas the return officers untruly returned that he had re¬ 
ceived 2594. That in the Second Ward, of the Northern Liberties, Wm. 
B. Reed received 202 votes; whereas the return officers have returned that 
he received 212 votes. And that in the Sixth Ward of Kensington, Wm. 
B. Reed received 315 votes; whereas the return officers have returned that 
he h id received 371 votes The aggregate loss of votes by these mistakes 
or frauds to Mr. Kneass, if the suggestion is true, in fact amounts to 176 


249 


votes, a number adequate, in one view of the case , to establish his title to 
the return he holds beyond doubt. Such testimony is therefore relevant 
and important. The only thing which interferes with its present admissi¬ 
bility is the time and the manner in which it has been offered. As to 
the time, f am of the opinion that it properly should have been proposed 
in the shape of an answer to the original petition, and offered as a response 
to it. This would have enabled both Court and parties, at the outset, to 
understand the precise subjects of investigation. This course would have 
prevented the procrastination which inevitably must follow from permitting 
the respondent to suppress his defence until his opponent has closed his 
case, where that defence, as here, consists not simply in negativing the 
charges in the petition, but in introducing new matters, making the re¬ 
spondent an assailant. Because, if we now permit the introduction of such 
new matter, putting the petitioner in the attitude of a respondent, time 
must be given to the former to meet the new case they presented. Order 
and system are indispensable requisites injudicial proceedings, and tend to 
limit their extent and simplify their administration. 

As to the manner of presenting such a defence, it ought clearly to be 
as strictly analogous as practicable to that required in the Petition. No 
petition impeaching an election return can be received, unless the party 
preferring it sustains his petition by his oath or affirmation that the facts 
alleged against the return are just and true according to the best of his 
knowledge and belief. So, when a respondent seeks in his answer not 
merely to sustain returns in his favor impeached by the petition, but to 
impeach those on which his adversary rests, he should alike fortify his 
answer impeaching them by a similar oath or affirmation. This forms a 
wholesome check on the experimental efforts which would be continually 
resorted to if statements of errors in the returns not so sustained, should 
be received from the respondent. Allegations not so sustained, would 
have no limit except the pleasure of the party making them, and a con¬ 
tested election would become a thing of infinite duration; occupying 
onerously the time of the Court, which is the property of the public, and 
swelling extravagantly its expenses, which in the first instance is to be 
paid for from the county treasurer. 

But although under different circumstances, I should be for rejecting 
proof of the second suggestion offered by the respondent, as out of time 
and defective in form, yet in this instance I am for adopting a more libe¬ 
ral rule, without, however, intending to make it a precedent. First, be¬ 
cause this is the first time such a question as the present has ever presented 
itself to the Court, and therefore it is not the case for too great strictness. 
And second, because a 3 the Court in furtherance of justice to the petition¬ 
ers, has admitted an amendment to the petition, which originally was de¬ 
fective in its form, the same regard for justice requires that a similar in¬ 
dulgence for the same object should be accorded to the respondent. I am, 
accordingly, in favor of admitting proofs of the facts set forth in the 
second suggestion filed, and will so receive them, provided the respondent 
declares on his oath or affirmation, that he believes the contents of the sug¬ 
gestion, to the best of his knowledge, are true. This course puts petition¬ 
ers and respondent on the same platform. The petitioner cannot impeach 
the respondent’s returns, without an affidavit of his belief in the truth of 
his allegations 5 and the respondent should not be permitted to assail those 
of the contesting candidate without the same sanction. I 11 this case there 
is no hardship in the requisition. If the alleged errors exist as is said, on 

32 


250 


the face of the returns, then an affidavit of the belief of the respondent in 
their existence therein, is a thing that cannot in the slightest degree em¬ 
barrass him. If they do not exist there, then our time is misspent in ex¬ 
amining them. In adopting this course, while we do strict justice, we 
avoid the results of the delay, complication and confusion which would 
inevitably ensue, from entering into the examination ol all and every re¬ 
turn, which a party may charge on his simple assertion with being fraudu¬ 
lent or erroneous; and which charge he is unwilling to say on his oath 
he believes to be true. Less than this is not surely due to the returns of 
sworn officers, which must certainly stand for true, unless one who assails 
them is willing to swear he believes them false. 


OPINION OF JUDGE KELLEY. 

I concur entirely with the President Judge in the view he has taken in 
the first branch of his opinion, as to the impropriety of allowing a re¬ 
count of the ballot boxes of the city and county. I have great doubt as 
to the propriety of the second branch. Not that the testimony offered 
could not at another time and would not have been perfectly competent 
—I think it would—I think it was perfectly competent for this Court to 
have inquired into every return—into the boxes of every poll against 
which any allegation was properly made by either of the parties. My 
objection is, that it is out of time, and there is that in the history and 
conduct of the case which makes it improper to admit it now. The peti¬ 
tion, filed by the thirty petitioners, and sworn to by two of them, contains 
a number of specifications, among which were those relating to First 
Ward, Moyamensing, and to the Western Precinct of the District of 
Penn. It would have been competent to the respondents to have made an 
issue with reference to any of the Wards, Townships or Precincts named, 
as containing the alleged frauds or mistakes in others. 

The Court would then have known the extent of the inquiry before it, 
and each party would have been informed of the other’s case, and there 
would have, been an issue or set of issues before the C ourt. The respondents, 
however, appeared to answer the petitioners’ case, by contesting the frauds 
and errors specified in their petition. They seemed to confine themselves 
entirely to them 5 and the petitioners, when they had laid before the Court 
their evidence in reference to Second Ward, Moyamensing, the alleged 
mistakes in West Philadelphia, and with reference to the poll of the Eastern 
precinct of Penn, believing they had established enough for their purpose, 
waived the examination of the other polls alluded to in theii petition and 
specifications. For aught the Court knows, their waiver of further testi¬ 
mony may have been in consequence of the fact, that the petitioners 
assumed to meet them on the points they had raised, and not to offer new 
points to the Court. I think therefore they chose their course and are 
bound by it. If we now admit this evidence,and the petitioners feel that 
there is that in the evidence*which shakes their case as it stands, they will 
have the right to ask us to go into the investigation of the poll of First 
Ward, Moyamensing, and the Western Precinct of the District of Penn, 
to which they would be encouraged by the testimony of the Assessor of 
the District, who has sworn that while he was at the Eastern Precinct, 
there was nobody at the Western Precinct performing the duty of A sessor. 

When they have examined these polls, we may wfith the same propriety 




251 


receive a new suggestion from the respondents, and we will nevei know 
when we have the last till the case is closed, and the opinion of the Court 
delivered. These are my objections to receiving the offer at this time. 
The President Judge overcomes these objections by saying that this case 
shall form no precedent. I take it that a case decided always makes a 
precedent, and if we can find reasons for overcoming them at this time, 
whoever may try the next election case, will find, in addition to the spe¬ 
cific circumstances of the case, the precedent now established by this 
Court. It will be a precedent, doubtless, that will be urged at the bar. 1 
have one hope, however, that it may not be used as a precedent, xhe 
Legislature is in session, and if the members will contemplate two or three 
facts well established in this case, I think they will obviate the neces¬ 
sity for contested elections hereafter. # . 

The alleged majority of the respondents is, I believe, 85. The admitted 
mistake—admitted by the Return Judge—of 50 in West Philadelphia, re¬ 
duces that majority to 35; the counting of the two ballot boxes—I am de¬ 
livering no judgment on the testimony, but simply looking at two or three 
striking facts—the counting of the ballot boxes reverses that majority of 
35, and would give the opposite party the majority. It is now alleged 
that by the examination of the returns of several other of the wards or 
townships, it will be shown that there are other mistakes to the number 
of 176 votes. This great number of mistakes , to omit entirely the wore 
fraud, would seem to indicate that our election system is a very bad one, 
and certainly the testimony before us shows that it is almost an impracti- 

C: il'requires, from the extent of the election districts, from thirty-six to 
fiftv hours continuous labor on the part of the officers, without sleep or 
other intermission of duty. It takes men not used to clerical duty—-not 
used to such confinement in a room, and it imposes upon them this duty 
for such a period. ‘It is no wonder that exhausted in this manner they 

^Few°mernladed by forty or sixty hours of unusual labor and confine¬ 
ment, can have theil senses so continually about them, that they can 
watch for hours a shrewd and base man, who may '' 

no allegation of general incompetence on the par of 

whpn wp see the dutv imposed upon them. It the Legislature wuum 
reduce our election districts so that only four hundred voters shall be in 
each and all the balloting be done in daylight, and the votes announced 
to the people when finished-should they thus reduce the districts and 

dangerous precedent. . - 

Jupge Campbell. ~ ci I gave my views in relation to rt^point-t>efoire 

the Court, on Friday and repeated them, on n Sat " rd th y e ’ firs t point discussed 
unnecessary to repeat them now. In reteie • £ „ 

by Judge King, I will give my opinion on another occas • 

yofha/e i iive^Tf which ^ 


252 


putting the same proposition in a more extended form, and in a different 
shape to your Honors. The propositions which I shall submit are tor an 
examination of all the tally li^ts, and a count of all the boxes ; one of 
which has been decided by your Honors, and the other has not, because it 
was not presented in that shape, though it may be covered by the decision 
made by the Court.” Mr. Read proceeded at some length to discuss it. 

J udge King. — i( In my judgment, this is the identical application which 
we have just over-ruled, except that it is accompanied with the affidavit of 
the respondent, that he believes that the re-count required may enure to 
his advantage ; it contains none of the specifications which we have de¬ 
termined were necessary, in order to entitle the parties to a re-count. If 
Mr. Kneass had thought proper to subjoin to this a precise statement of his 
belief of errors in described boxes, then he would have brought himself 
within the rule we have laid down. There have been in the remarks of 
the counsel for the respondant two suggestions, which are supposed to be 
adequate to induce a modification in the views just expressed by the Court. 
The first is a past precedent. What is this precedent 1 ? 

il We have not before us the petition in the case, and therefore we are 
not aware but that the petition alleged specific frauds or errors in the 
particular districts, and brought the case within our strictest rules. We 
have no evidence, nor have I any recollection that objection was made by 
any party to the recount in that case. It does not appear but that it 
might have been a matter of consent and agreement by both sides. Now, 
surely, a report of a case of such a character, if there were no other pre¬ 
cedent on the subject, would hardly be conclusive on a court of justice. 
It is a matter of every day practice for a court when past decisions are in¬ 
timated to draw the distinction between sub silentio acts of the court 
upon matters introduced by one side and passed without comment by the 
other, and cases deliberately argued and judgment passed upon them. No 
human being that ever was a Judge had ever that quickness of intellect as to 
be able upon an instant to pronounce a precisely accurate judgment upon 
every proposition submitted to him. it has sometimes even happened 
that after the fullest deliberation, courts have given decisions which they 
afterwards became satisfied were erroneous. But this precedent is not 
only subject to this objection—detracting from its force. It has been met 
by subsequent decisions more deliberately considered. In Skerrett’s case 
there was a demand for a recount. In Lelar’s case, Mr. Deal distinctly 
swore that the recount would show he was elected, and yet the Court 
came to the conclusion, that admitting a recount on such general allega¬ 
tions would be fatal to the whole election system, and we saw that we 
were called upon to make a rule strict in its nature—less calculated to in¬ 
duce fraud and more just to the officers who conduct elections, and we ac¬ 
cordingly adopted the rule that he who attacks the return and asks to re¬ 
count the ballots, shall at least say in what it is defective, fraudulent or 
inconsistent with them. It may be said that in Lelar’s case the refusal 
was a necessary result of the defective petition. This argument is not 
sound, because if it is sufficient to entitle a party to claim a recount of the 
ballot boxes that he simply states his belief that the contents are errone¬ 
ously returned—the petition containing that single specification would be 
enough, and a party filing a petition containing that specification would 
be entitled to a recount although all the enumerations precedent to it 
should have been rejected. If this was allowed, where would we be ? 
At every election a party has only to come into court and say he believes 



253 


the returns to be incorrect, and this Court would be turned into mere can¬ 
vassers of election. If the law made it our duty, we would be bound to 
do it, but it would be the most disastrous thins; to the citizens that we 
could well do ; and any man who can think calmly must see, that though 
it may serve his turn to-day and gratify either his political or personal 
feelings, that he is introducing a doctrine that to-morrow will operate 
with crushing force upon himself. The first reason then assigned in Mr. 
Head’s argument—the supposed precedent has no force, because it is not 
shown that it was the result of deliberation, argument or solemn adjudica¬ 
tion, because it is not shown but that the recount might have been by 
consent, and because it has since been again and again over-ruled. 

“ Second, it is said that the Court ordered a re-count in this case, of the 
boxes in Moyamensing and Penn District, and for this reason the general 
recount should be allowed. I suggested it, but I did not do it because I 
thought it would have the effect to show a difference between the return 
and the votes. I may be asked, then, why I made it—I was desirous of 
knowing whether the variations in Second Ward, Moyamensing, and par¬ 
ticularly in Penn District were the result of scratched tickets, or whether 
they were the result of entire change in the whole party ticket. Would 
it not have enured to the benefit of Mr. Kneass if the differences in his 
favor were shown to be the result of scratchings on the whig ticket ? 

“Again, on the other side, if they had appeared to have been from 
changes of the entire whig ticket, it would have had some influence 
against the return. Again, I had in view to see the state and condition 
of the tickets to aid my judgment on the finaj^decision. It resulted in ex¬ 
hibiting the unexpected differences in the count. 

a But I insist that, independent of these reasons, the re-count ordered 
was strictly proper. The two ballot-boxes counted were the two assailed 
boxes. They were in evidence, and the Court had a perfect right to be 
in possession of all concerning them. In those wards, in which I have 
since admitted evidence under the second suggestion, I shall be in favor 
of counting the boxes, if required, because they are the specific ones that 
we are investigating. 

“ For these reasons I am of opinion that the petition should be overruled, 
because it amounts to no more than a general request for a re-count, ac¬ 
companied with an oath, that the party believes a beneficial result will 
follow and it has not that precision and accuracy which the Court say is 
necessary. I am also of opinion that the precedent cited is without force, 
and that it has since been again and again overruled by the Court. In 
this particular case it was overruled by the Court, as is stated in the writ¬ 
ten opinion I have just delivered. In the petition there is a prayer for a 
count of the boxes, and the contestants swore to general errors. Their 
prayer was rejected. How then can the Court grant this petition now ?” 

Judge Kelley. — u I concur in all Judge King has said upon this point 
before the Court. I reserve the right to pass on future offers when they 

come up.” 

Mr, Hirst.—“1 now file the pleas and the affidavit of Mr. Kneass, sub- 
ioined. [Reads the affidavit.] I give in evidence the tally li t and return 
in Fourth Ward, Kensington, accompanied with the list of voters. I offer 
it, to confirm that part of the plea referring to it, and to show the differ¬ 
ence in the list of voters.” 


254 . 


Horn R. Kneass, beinir duly affirmed, saith that he hath examined a 
portion, and hath caused o be examined other portions of the returns of 
the last election, on hit in the proper office; that it appears from said 
examination that in the '! hird Ward, Northern Liberties, there is an evident 
mistake of ten votes to the loss of this affirmant; that there is an evident 
and gross error, and care essness in the Fourth Ward, Kensington, as will 
appear by examination thereof; that the separate returns of the \\ ards of 
the Northern Liberties l ave been added up, and amount to 2596 votes; 
that in the Second Ward Northern Liberties, no tallv list is found that the 
vote as given immediatel after the election was held and published, differs 
ten to the loss of this affirmant; that in the tally list of the Sixth Ward, 
Kensington, the figures cr marks intended to represent “ ten,” or many of 
th. j m, look like eights. 

H. R. KNEASS. 

Affirmed and subscribed March 19th, 1851. 

JOHN WILLIAMS, Clerk. 

Mr. Campbell. —“I don’t understand what the list of voters has to do 
with it.” 

Mr. Hirst. — U I withdraw the list of voters. I give in evidence the 
tally list and return of Third Ward, Northern Liberties, to show that Mr. 
Reed received 206 votes, and has credit for 216. I give in evidence the 
return for Second Ward, Northern Liberties. The returns gave Mr. Reed 
212, while he received but 202. The tally list is not to be found; we 
have made diligent searcher it. In connection with this, I give in evi¬ 
dence the list of voters, and call for the production of the tally list. In 
reference to the genera! return of the Northern Liberties, Mr. Reed is re¬ 
turned as receiving two votes more than the addition shows he did receive. 

I give in evidence the tally list of Sixth Ward, Kensington. Mr. Reed’s 
figures are eighths and Mr. Kneass’s are tens.” 

[Mr. Hirst closed, and withdrew the general return for the Northern 
Liberties.] 

Mr. Campbell. —“ I want to offer evidence, first, with reference to Sixth 
Ward, Kensington.” 

Francis McBride, sworn. — “ That is my signature to the return, and 
also to the tally list for Sixth Ward, Kensington.” 

Alderman Dare, affirmed. —“I brought this box for Sixth Ward, Ken¬ 
sington, with me. I have had it in my custody since the late general 
election.” 

Cross-examined. —“The box was brought to me the next morning after 
the election. There were seven boxes, I think, brought to me.” 

Question. —“ How do you know this contains the tally list?” 

Answer. —■“ They always put them in the large boxes, and you can tell 
by shaking it. The others are all small boxes.” 

Francis McBride, re-called. —“That is my signature to this tally list 
taken from the box.” 

Mr. Campbell. —“I desire to give this tally list in evidence, in which 
the crosses to the tens are straight instead of crooked.” 


\ 



255 


Witness cross-examined. — Question .— u What is the meaning of this. 
For instance one candidate receives 400 OOF’ 

Answer .—“ I suppose that was meant for vctes, his pen might have 
slipped. It is intended for 400, I suppose.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ It appears to be kept as dollars and cents.” 

Question .—“ This is a list of all the votes received in that Ward, is it?” 


Mr. Campbell .—“That is nit connected with my examination-in-chief ” 

Mr. Hirst —“ The plea avers that in Sixth Ward, Kensington, Mr. Reed 
received 315, whereas the return gives him 371. To give him that number, 
there should have been polled 583 votes. I find from the list of voters just 
unfolded, that there were but 517 votes polled in that Ward, and I wish 
to turn the attention of the Court to the list ot voters.” 

Judge King. — “ This is not legitimate on cross-examination. If any¬ 
thing new is introduced, you must make your application.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ I next turn your attention to Fourth Ward, Kensing¬ 
ton.” 

Alderman Cloud , sworn .—“ I brought this ballot-box with me, and it 
has been in my careful custody since the last election.” 

Cross-examined .— 66 1 received it the next morning after the election. 
It has been in a closet in my house since. My impression is that I had 
ten boxes altogether from Fourth and Fifth Wards. There is no Aider- 
man in Fifth Ward, he is dead.” . 

Mr. Campbell .—“ I give in evidence this tally-list of this Ward, which 
is without erasures. Mr. Reed received 308^ votes, Mr. Kneass 245.” 


Mr. Hirst. _“I give in evidence the other inspector’s return.” 

Mr. McBride re-called.—" I was the genera return judge for the Dis¬ 
trict of Kensington. I took the returns to the return judge. I delivered 
them in that room I believe to Mr. Enue, and I put the other papers m the 
office of the Court of Common Pleas—that is, he papers of the ward m 
which I was judge—not the general return papers. The general return 
•papers I gave to Mr. Enue. I don’t know whether they were ever filed in 
the Court of Common Pleas. I have a copy of them myself at home. 

Cross-examined. — Question .—“ Do you know how many votes were 
polled that day ?” 

Mr Campbell.—“T hat is not in reference to my examination in chief. 
I give in evidence now the tally list for the Eastern precinct oi North 
Mulberry Ward. In one tally list it was cccxxvn. which was carried out 
337. I have the other talley list, which is cccxxxvn. 

C. C. French, affirmed.—" Look at these two tally lists and explain 
the difference.” 

Answer. — “ The paper in which the error is made, is my own hand- 
writiTT The manner in which 1 made out this tally list, I had a paper 
refore me with the amount, 337. First I gave he Roman characters, 
and then writing, and then figures, relying entirely upon the memoran¬ 
dum before me, and not on the Roman characters. It is a character that 


256 


numbers are so seldom expressed in that I was at a loss to make them. 
The writing and the figures are correct.” 

Cross-examined .—“ I don’t know that the papers from which I copied 
it were preserved. I speak from the writing.” 

Question .—“ Is this a tally list of the votes given in that w’ard, as 
counted by the judges?” 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Campbell .—“ That closes my case.” 

Adjourned to meet to-morrow, at 10 A. M. 


% 


V 










APPENDIX. 


CONTESTED ELECTION CASE. 

BEFORE DAVID WEBSTER, ESQ., EXAMINER. 

Thursday, February 27, 1851, at 4, P. M. 

James Haybum , sworn.-Mr. Hirst—- You were clerk the ,| eneral 
election held in Second Ward, Moyamensmg, at the last election . 

Answer. — 44 Yes, sir.” 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 By whom were you appointed V 9 

Answer. —“ By the inspector of the election, Mr. McMullen. The 
poll opened at nine o’clock, or near it. 

Mr. Hirst. — 44 What occasioned the delay V 9 

Answer. — 44 At what time V 9 

Mr , Hirst.— “ From 8 to 9 o’clock. Was there any delay occasioned . 

Answer. — 44 Not that I know of. . ^ 

Mr. Hirst— 11 At what time did the Alderman arrive V 
Answer .—“ He arrived before the polls opened. He qualified 

officers immediately.” /c «,a r p 

Question -—“ Were the polls opened as soon as the o 

qualified?” O >clock, to the best of my 

Answer. —“ They were opened at nine 

knowledge, precisely.” 

Question.-- At what hour did the election close ? 

Answer.—- At ten, precisely.” 

Question.—- What number of votes had been po e 

Rnewer -_ — Twelve hundred and twenty-t ree. 

"Zion -- Durino- what part of the time that the polls were open, was 

the^e ttTargest number of votes polled in proportion ? 

Answer.—- From six to ten, at night.” 

Question. —“Did you keep a list of voters?” 

Answer. —“ A perfect list, sir.” , , 

Question. —“ Was your list kept accurately or inaccura y • 

Answer.-- I kept it myself-nobody else kept J. 

QuesH i,n.-“ Was it kept accurately or inaccura T- 

33 


258 


Answer .—“It was kept accurately. What I understand by that is, I 
kept it myself. There wa3 mistakes on the other list, which I had to ac¬ 
knowledge on mine, as soon as they were discovered.” 

Question. —“ When were the lists compared ?” 

Answer .—“ They were compared after the polls were closed, and they 
were compared before that sometime—don’t remember exactly the time 
before it.” 

Question. —“From the time the polls were closed until the ballot boxes 
were sealed, state all that occurred V 9 

Answer .—“All that occurred has been published, and is known to be 
what the report of the officers of the election gave out.” 

Question .—“What was the first thing done on closing the polls V 9 

Answer. —“ The first thing done was to correct certain papers in rela¬ 
tion to numbers—mistakes.” 

Question .—“ How were they corrected, I wish you to state fully V 9 

Answer. —“ At one stage of the election, in the morning, the opposite 
clerk to me got sick and lay back for sometime. My list had to be kept 
by myself altogether. His was imperfect because other officers of the 
election interfered with his list. This is all that I know in regard to that 
matter.” 

Question. —“ Who wrote on his list V 9 

Answer. —“ I wrote a portion of it, after my own was completed. I 
made my own out first. I think I wrote a portion on his, and Megarey, 
the Inspector, or Mr. Wurteim, or McMullen, I don’t know which, wrote 
on it. There is three or four hand-writings on that list; mine is on it I 
know.” 

Question.—“ Was your list numbered when the polls closed?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir, it was not numbered from ten o’clock in the day. 
I had all the numbers to make out after the polls closed. I was not able 
to attend to all these matters.” 

Question. —“ Was your list perfect, except the numbering V 9 

Answer .—“ Yes, sir. Every man’s name, as far as I could catch it, as 
he gave it in, was written down. I had to call several men from the 
window, to understand their first and last name.” 

Question. —“ Was the other list numbered when the polls closed?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question .—“ How far had that been numbered ?” 

Witness. —“ Which list have you reference to ?” 

Mr. Hirst. —■“ The list of the other clerk.” 

Witness .—“ A very small way, perhaps one leaf. I don’t know exactly, 
but I judge it to be about that.” 

Question .—“ After numbering the lists, what was the next thing done, 
after closing the polls?” 

Answer .—“The next thing was counting the Amendment ticket, after 









259 


we got through the papers in relation to the matter, that is numbering the 
lists, and such things as that, then we proceeded to count the ticket.” 

Question. —“ Were the two lists of voters compared 

Answer. —“ Yes, sir, they were.” 

Question. —“Was the other list of voters made to correspond with 
yours?” 

Answer .—“ I made it so myself.” 

Question. —“ Which ticket did you first count off'?” 

Answer.—' “ The Amendment.” 

Question. —“ Who counted off the tickets?” 

Answer .—“The Inspectors, and the Judge re-counted them.” 

Question .—“ Who tallied as the Judge counted?” 

Answer. —“I, for one, and Wurteim, another.” 

Question. —“ What did the Judge do with the tickets as he counted 
them off, and you tallied them?” 

Answer .—“ Twisted them and put them into the box.” 


Question .—“ What was the next ticket counted off? ’ 
Answer. —“ Commissioners.” 

Question. —“ Who counted that ?” 

Answer. —“ The Inspectors.” 

Question. —“ Who tallied and twisted?” 

Answer. —“ The same as before, the Inspectors and Judge.’ 


Question. —“ What was the next ticket counted off?” 
Answer. —“ State and County officers.’ 

Question.—“ And the next?” 


Answer. —“ Marshal of Police.” 

Question.—“ Who counted off and tallied them, and put them in the 
toxes ?” 

Answer—" One portion of the officers counted, and the other talhed 

hem.” , . .. 

Question—" Who was in the room during timejhe electron was 
ie ld, from nine o’clock in the morning till ten at night. 

Answer.—“ The officers.” 

Question. —“ Any one else ?” 

Answer .—“ No, sir.” 

Question-" Who was in the room from the time the electron was 
dosed till tire ballot boxes were sealed 1 
Answer.—" Mr. Enue.” 

Question—“ Any one else V’ 


Answer. —“ Not to my knowledge, or that I have seen or know of. He 
was called for the purpose of showing us what boxes the papers would be 
put in.” 

Question. — u From the time the polls opened until the ballot boxes 
were removed, were you present or absent ?” 

Answer. — <£ I never got up off of my chair for thirty hours, as near as 
I can remember—from the time the polls opened till we removed the 
ballot boxes up stairs. I can’t remember what time it was. I judge it 
was from six o’clock in the morning till some time the next day. i er “ 
haps I have made a mistake. I didn’t rise from my chair.” 

Question. —“ When the tickets were polled during the day, where were 
they placed ?” 

Answer _“In the boxes.” 

Question. —“ Did tliey remain there till counted, and were they 
counted ?” 

Answer. —“ Yes.” 

Question. —“ Was the name of any voter placed upon the list of voters 
who hadn’t voled ?” 

Answer. —“ Not that I know of, sir.” 

Question. —“ Could it have been done without your knowledge ?” 

Answer. —“ Perhaps it might, but I didn’t see it. It might have been 
done, but I don’t say it is done, or was done.” 

Question .—“ Was any name placed upon your list of voters who didn’t 
vote ?” 

Answer.— “ No, sir. I kept my own list throughout perfect.” 

Question .—“ What number of votes was on your list ?” 

Answer. —“ 1223 was on my list when the clock struck.” 

Question. —“ What was done with your list of voters'?” 

Answer. —“ Put in the box.” 

Question. —“Which box?” 

Answer. —“ Can’t say which box, but in one of the five, or in one of 
the number in the room.” 

Question. —■“ Was it sealed up and delivered to Aid. Fletcher?” 

Answer. —“Yes, sir—sealed and delivered. I was present at the time 
they were both sealed and delivered.” 

Question. —Do you recollect what took place when a voter, named 
Vertine, voted ?” 

Answer. —“ That is well explained. All I have to say is the same the 
rest have said in relation to that matter. I heard and seen a man come 
to the window and vote that vote. It was a general piece of remark for 
the officers at the time. The opposite clerk to me said he was no relation 
of his. It is spelled Vertine —the other name is quite different.” 

Question. —“ What time did he vote ?” 

Answer. —“ He voted after night, but I can’t tell you the time.” 




261 


Question .—“Did you finish the counting in the same room in which 
you commenced ?” 

Answer. —“ No, sir.” 

Question. —“ Where did you finish it?” 

Answer. —“Up stairs.” 

Question. —“ When and why did you go up stairs ?” 

Answer. —“ We went up at the instance of the assessor, and landlord of 
the house, after the polls closed and we got other things through, he 
wanted room in the place. It was too small and confined anyhow. There 
was a stove and such matters in our way. We wanted something to eat 
—-for my part, I received nothing to eat till that time, except a cracker.’, 

Question .—“ \\ ho carried the boxes up stairs?” 

Answer. —“ The officers.” 

Question. —“ Do you know whether the first and last names of voters 
on the list are correct?” 

Answer. —“ I don’t know anything about the first or last either.” 
Question. —“ Had you difficulty in catching the names?” 

Answer .—“ Much so—great difficulty in catching the names.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ State what sum of money you received before and after 
the election and from whom?” 

Mr. Brown. —“ What has that to do with it ? I don’t understand that 
that is the point. This is a novelty altogether. I deem it my duty with¬ 
out consultation with my client on the subject, to take opposition in the 
outset to the introduction of any matter that is not connected with this 
issue, and that has not been indicated in the progress of the trial in any 
way. I take it for granted that the purpose in submitting it to the com¬ 
missioner is not to travel from the record, and if it should be, it will be 
my object to brink it back to the record, otherwise we don’t know where 

we are.” 

Mr. Hirst.— u I will put it in another form. What sum of money did 
you receive from Mr. Reed ?” 

Mr. Brown. —“ I object to that. Not that we have any apprehension of 

it_that is not the point, but the moment we travel from this record we 

are at sea, without anything to direct us. We have taken this case as it 
stands upon the record, and certainly it never entered into the views of 
counsel that the object of referring it to you, which was very agreeable to 
us, should be to get rid of the proper landmarks by which the voyage is to 
be regulated. I take leave to stop this matter in the outset, and if it is to 
be determined upon, I ask it to be determined upon by the Court before 
we have proceeded so far as moy be calculated to place us beyond oppoi- 
tunity of retrieving our original position. The Court, as I understand, 
required that where°there were points of difficulty, they should be referred 
to them ; and as a matter of justice to you, and obedience to their injunction, 
I encounter this effort in the outset. I could not suppose that the refer¬ 
ence had any relation to any other matter than that properly involved in 
the proceeding submitted to the Court, if it have such relation, it is one I 
did not contemplate, and will not submit to as the counsel m tips pro¬ 
ceeding.” 


262 


Mr. Tyler .—“The Court have been exceedingly free in the admission 
of testimony in this case, and they have admitted that to which we have 
made objection, always with the reservation that upon argument it might be 
stricken off. There was an understanding that all points of law should be 
discussed before the Court, but I don’t think there was understanding which 
would prevent the reception of evidence by the Commissioner at this stage, 
with the reservation that hereafter these gentlemen may make an argument 
before the Court to strike it off, if it shall prove irrelevant. I don’t think 
the Court has ever, upon application made, though we have objected a 
number of times, refused to receive evidence, and they have received it 
with the understanding that hereafter upon argument, it should be stricken 
off if the Court thought proper. I hope the Commissioner will receive 
this evidence with the understanding that the point shall be heard before 
the Court, on Saturday next, and shall not be regarded, if they so decide 
it.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ It has been asserted by the other side, not lightly, but 
after objection and upon reflection, that all the officers of Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, were of one way of thinking, and that they were all friendly 
to Mr. Kneass and adverse to Mr. Reed. I propose to show by the witness, 
that that was not the case. I wish not to depart from the record, and 
will not do it, but agreeable or disagreeable as it may be, I desire to show 
that such was not the fact, that xMr. Reed and the witness had interviews 
before the election, that the witness applied for the office of clerk at the 
suggestion of Mr. Reed, or with his consent, that he received sums of 
money from Mr. Reed before as well as after the election, amounting per¬ 
haps to some three or four hundred dollars. I think if that testimony is 
given it will entirely demolish the proposition of fact, that all the officers 
in the house were of the one way of thinking. I need not advert to the 
collateral influence of the testimony. If this is proved it is not likely that 
a person so situated as Mr. Hayburn was, could sit by and see fraud. I 
sincerely regret that there should have arisen a contest as to this testimony, 
and still more that my frirnd should suppose evidence would be offered 
here that would not be offered before the Court, but I deem it material in 
the case, and I am instructed to offer and to press it.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ I have but a few words in reply, which I wish spe¬ 
cially noted. If the inquiry were simply whether this witness belonged 
to one party or the other, which would be all that was required in order 
to meet that branch of the issue, I should make no objection, and in the 
objection that I do make, I speak without consultation with my client and 
entirely from a sense of professional duty and strict regard for the issue 
submitted to you. To say that I did not anticipate an effort of this kind, 
would not be just to myself—to say that I did not hope that such an effort 
would not be made under this reference, would be unjust to the opposite 
counsel. I object to this, sir, because it is an attempt to substitute what 
never has been embraced in this issue as it stands upon the record, and 
what never has been indicated in the opening of counsel and what never 
has been hinted at in the progress of the evidence, and therefore a matter 
not reasonably to be expected or legally to be allowed. It would be, as 
you cannot fail to perceive, to involve matters that were not contemplated 
—which the Court would not allow and which the law does not admit of. 
As to the suggestion of one of the learned counsel that the evidence can 
be taken down and that then the Court can decide upon it, that is to make 
this reference the vehicle of contumely and reproach, which may be re- 







263 


moved to be sure, partially, by the subsequent decision of the Court, but 
to which, as we had no right to expect, we ought not to submit to here. 
In respect to the Court striking off the matter when it shall present itself, 
I have further this to say, that it was the distinct understanding, and I 
suppose it has been so communicated to you upon judicial authority, that 
if any point or question of evidence as to legality or pertinency should be 
presented in the course of this investigation, that that question should be 
submitted to the Court of which you are the representative for the pre¬ 
sent, for their determination, and in order that you might pursue the course 
which that determination would indicate.” 

Mr. Hirst _“ That was the understanding.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ I beg leave simply to observe, in addition, that what I 
have said, was said for myself, as an officer of the Court to an officer of 
the Court, and without any regard to what may be Mr. Reed’s views on 
the subject.” 

Mr. Webster. —“ I will state that after the appointment was made this 
morning, 1 sought an interview with the President Judge, and desired some 
general directions in reference to the taking of this testimony, but he de¬ 
clined making any in the absence of his colleagues and the counsel; but 
he suggested that the proper course would be for tbe Examiner in the 
first instance to exercise his best judgment, and to exclude or admit as to 
him appeared best. If a difficulty occurred, his safer course would be to 
refer the matter immediately to the Court for instructions. If this ques¬ 
tion is insisted upon, I will indicate what course I will pursue.” 

Mr. Tyler .—“The only question here, since the statement of the object 
is, whether the evidence is germain to the issue.” 

Mr. Webster. —“ My opinion is that it is not, and that it is not em¬ 
braced within my appointment.” 

Mr. Hirst .—“ I understand that this is reserved, and will be submitted 
to the Court, as we shall request the Examiner.” 

Mr. Brown .—“ I ask it to be submitted to the Court, because I deem it 
expedient that the Judges should pronounce their view in regard to it ” 

Adjourned to meet in Court, on Saturday next, at 10 o’clock, A. M. 





/ 


LISTS FURNISHED BY THE RESPONDENT. 

Persons Assessed, who Voted after 906. 


do 

do 


„., f p n T £ ’ s! °1 , Voter ‘- On Assessor's List. Remarks 

SOD Jeremiah Manning. Jeremiah Manning, Stewart Did not vote before, 
o t a tt Street, above Catharine. 

910 Henry Kane. Henry King, 9th Street, be- do 

low Cedar. 

911 Wm. McCormick. William McCormack, Mil. do 

ton St., bel. 11th, weaver. 

N. B. Wm. McCormack , 
referred to by Aid. Campbell , 
was a Curb Setter , Reed's 
Court. 

912 Charles McColgan. Charles McColgin, Shippen do 

Street, and 7th. 


do 


914 James Boyle. 


916 Owen Galligher. 
918 John Duffee. 


James Boyle, 8th & Chris-One voted before at 667. 
txan Streets. 

James Boyle, 10th Street, 
below Christian. 

James Boyle, Carpenter St., 
above 9th. 

Owen Gallagher, Mariots Did not vote before. 
Lane. 

John Duffey, Baker Street, One voted before at 902. 
below 8th. 


John Duffy, l Oth Street, ab. 

Milton. 

John Duffey, Lisle Street, 
above Fitzwater. 

919 James Dougherty. James Dougherty, 8th St., Did not vote before. 

above Christian. 


923 B. McCeaver. 


930 John McCulic. 


Henry McElvee, Stewart 
Street, above Christian. 

do 

do 

James McGinley, Shippen 
Street, below 8th. 

do 

do 

Bernard McKeever, Shippen 
Street, below 8th. 

do 

do 

l. Andrew McQuillan, 7th St., 
above Shippen. 

do 

do 

Patrick McCann, Bedford 
Street, below 8th. 

do 

do 

John McCann, Shippen St., 
above 7th. 

do 

do 

Patrick McGillen, Shippen 
Street, above 8th. 

do 

do 

James McAmeny, Christian 
Street, below 9th. 

do 

do 

James McMenamy, Baker 
Street, below 8th. 

do 

do 

James McElmee, Flower St., 
below Fitzwater. 

do 

do 

John McCullough, Baker St., 
below 8th. 

do 

do 

Washington Auld, Christian 
Street, below 10th. 

do 

do 




2 


On List of Voters. 
932 Patrick 0‘Brien. 


On Assessor's List. Remarks. 

Patrick 0‘Brian, Cedar St., Did not vote before, 
above 10th. 

934 Thomas McCloskey. Thomas McCloskey, 7th St., One voted before at 253. 

below Shippen. 

Thomas McCloskey, Catha¬ 
rine Street, below 9th. 

935 Robert Brown. Robt. Brown, Milton Street, Did not vote before. 


938 William Creig. 

941 John R. Thompson 

943 Anthony Vance. 

944 Callather McCarty. 
946 Andrew Vine. 

948 John Price. 

950 Redmon Penable. 
952 James ONeil. 


do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 


954 James Neiles, Jr. 

955 Michael Lamb. 

961 Henry Yeats. 


below 11th. 

Wm. Creig, Shippen Street, do 
above 7th. 

John R. Thompson, Stewart do 
Street, below Catharine. 

Anthony Vance, Morris St., do 
below Fitzwater. 

Callahan McCarty, 7th St., do 
below Shippen. 

Andrew Vine, 7th and Ship- 
pen Streets. 

John Price, Baker Street, Did not vote before, 
below 8th. 

Redmond Prendwell, Baker do do 

Street, above 7th. 

James 0‘Neal, Baker Street, One voted at 887, another at 
below 8th. 1120. 

James 0‘Neal, 7th St., below 
Shippen. 

James 0‘Neal, Milton Street, 
below 11th. 

James 0‘Neal, 10 Street ab. 

Milton. 

James Neillis, Jr., Cedar St., Did not vote before. Father 
below 10th. voted at 23. 

Michael Lamb, Carpenter One voted at 140. 

Street, above 10th. 

Michael Lamb, Carpenter 
Street, below 10th. 

Henry Yates, Shippen St., Did not vote before, 
below 11th. 


962 

James Potter. 

James Potter, Cedar Street, 
below 10 th. 

do 

do 

963 

George Manley. 

George Mooney, No. 197 S. 

9 th Street. 

do 

do 

964 

James Nell. 

James Niely, Milton Street, 
below 11th. 

do 

do 

965 

James Leaper. 

James Leiper, Morris Steeet, 

do 

do 


971 James Gorman. 

973 Cornelius McKee. 

974 Edward Hunter. 
981 John Murtland. 

983 Charles Green. 

984 Simon Fouren. 


above Christian. 

James Gorman, Catharine One voted at 649, & McSor- 
Slreet, above 8th. ley at page 63, proves 

there are 2. 

Cornelius McKee, 10th St., Did not vote before, 
above Milton. 

Edward Hunter. Admitted on Contestant’s 

List. Did not vote before. 

John Murtland, Carpenter do do 

Street, below 8th. 

Charles Green, Hubbell St., do do 

below Fitzwater. 

Simon Faren, Marriott St., do do 

below 9 th. 

John Dunn, Milton Street, None voted before, 
below 8tb. 


987 John Dunn. 


3 


On List of Voters. 


988 James Morris. 

989 John Raulston. 

990 James Smith. 

991 John Wolf. 

992 John Thomas. 

993 Jacob Hubert. 

994 Thos. Congrove. 

995 Charles Githens. 

997 George Jackson. 

998 Robert Jones. 

999 Charles Nelson. 

1001 James Sullivan. 

1002 John Whatt. 

1003 Isaac Morton. 

1005 William Detiz. 

1006 J ames Cannon. 

1008 William Evens. 

1009 John H. Smith. 


On Assessor's List . RemarU 

John Dunn, 10th St., above None voted before.' 
Milton. 

John Dunn, 10th St., above 
Milton. 

James Morris, Lebanon St., Did not vote before, 
below Filzwater. 

John Raulston, Carpenter do do 

Street, below 11th. 

James Smith, 11th St., above do do 
Carpenter. 

John Wolf, Fitzwater Street, do do 

above 9th. 


John Thomas, Morris Street, One voted at 376, 
below Fitzwater. 

John Thomas, 11th Street, 
below Cedar. 


Jacob Herbert, Fitzwater Did not vote before. 
Street, above 8th. 


Thos. Cosgrove, Milton St., do 
below 11th. 

do 

Charles Githens, Fitzwater do 
Street, above 8th. 

do 

George Jackson, 8th Street, do 
above Fitzwater. 

do 

Robert Jones, Essex Street, do 
below Catharine. 

do 

Charles Nelson, Lebanon St., do 
below Fitzwater. 

do 

James Sullivan, Essex St., do 
below Catharine. 

do 

John Watt, Carpenter St., do 
above 10th. 

do 

Isaac Morton, 8th Street, Did not vote before, 
below Shippcn. 

w illiam Dirtz, Catharine St., do 
below 10th. 

do 

James Cannon, 8th Street, do 
below Christian. 

do 

William Evins, South Street, do 
above 7th. 

do 

Admitted by Contestant’s. do 

do 


1011 

1013 

1017 

1021 

1027 

1034 

1036 

1045 

1054 


P. McKeever. 

John Murray. 

John Benson. 
Owen Kelly. 

Henry A. Knowlin. 
William Green. 
Andrew Cochran. 
William Kee. 

John Lilley. 


P. McKeever. do do 

John Murray, Christian St., One voted at 34. 
below 10th. 

John Murray, No. 153 S. 

9 th Street. 

John Benish, Mariott Street, Did not vote before, 
below 9th. 

16 Kellys’ on Assessor’s 11 voted. 

List. 

3 Nolens’ on Assessor’s One voted before. 
List. 

William Green, Hubbell St., Did not vote before, 
below Fitzwater. 

Admitted in Contestant’s do do 

List. 

William Keys, Milton Street, do do 
below 11th. 

3 Luilile’s on Assessor’s do do 

List, 7th Street above 
Fitzwater. 


4 


On List of Voters. 
1058 Michael Loob. 

1060 John Woods. 

1062 Canedy 0‘Niel. 

1068 Henry Gaut. 

1074 Hugh Grover. 

1082 J. S. Joseph. 

1089 John Hill. 

1098 Wm. Long. 
1103 John Conely. 

1109 Wm. Morgan. 

1119 Joseph Rooland. 

1120 James ONeil. 


1135 Samuel Jones. 
7137 James Meneh. 

1140 Richard Howell. 
1143 Patrick Morgan. 
1150 Jas. McSalley. 
1165 J. L. Mullen. 


1182 John Me GUI. 
1109 John Plumby. 
1218 John Richards. 


On Assessor's List. Remarks. 

Michael Lubey, 7th Street, Did not vote before, 
above Fitzwater. 


John F. Woods, 10th Street, 

do 

do 

above Carpenter. 
Constantine ONeil, Mariott 

do 

do 

Street, below 9th. 

Wm. Gault, Cedar St., below 

do 

do 

11th. 

Hugh Gruning, Carpenter 

do 

do 

Street, above 10th. 

Isaac Josephs, Cedar Street. 

do 

do 


above 8th. 

John Hill, Tailor, Mariott One voted at 153. 

Street, below 9th. 

John Hill, Distiller, Catha¬ 
rine Street, below 10th. 

Wm. Long, Catharine Street, Did not voto before, 
above Morris. 

John Connell, Shippen St., One voted at 853. 
below 8th. 

John Connelly, Bedford St., 
above 7th. 

Admitted by Contestant’s. Did not vote before. 

Joseph Rhue, 11th & Catha- do do 

rine Streets. 

James 0‘Neal, Baker Street, One voted at 887, another a4 
below 8th. 952. 

James 0‘Neal, 7th St., below 
Shippen. 

James 0‘Neal, Milton Street, 
below 11th. 

James 0‘Neal, 10th Street, 
above Milton. 

Samuel Jones, Lebanon St., Did not vote before, 
below Fitzwater. 


James Mennis, Carpenter 
Street, below 8th. 

do 

do 

Robert Howell, 10th Street, 
below Cedar. 

do 

do 

Patrick Meehan, Laborer, 
Shippen Street, below 8th. 

do 

do 

Francis Salley, 10th Street, 

do 

do 


below Christian. 

James Mullen, Laborer, 10th 2 voted before at No.’s 180 
Street, above Christian. and 557. 

John Mullen, Bottler, Ship- 
pen Street below 8th. 

James Mullen, Laborer, Car¬ 
penter St., below 8th. 

James Mullen, Drayman, 

Hubbell Street ab. Catha¬ 
rine. 

John Mullen, Carman, Ship- 
pen Street, below 10th. 

John McGill, Laborer, Car- Did not vote before. 


penter Street, above 10th. 
John Plumb, Cordwainer, 

do 

do 

Mariott Street, below 9th. 
Jacob Richards, Tailor, Es¬ 

do 

do 

sex Street, below Catha¬ 
rine. 




5 


On List of Voters. 
1221 John Field.——92 


On Assessor's List. 

John Freed, Dyer, Shippen. 
Street, below 8th. 


Remarks. 

Did not vote before. 


Persons Assessed, whose names appear after 906, who 
nave testified that they did not vote. 


918 Jno. Duffy. 

933 James Agnew. 

937 Felix Bradley. 

939 Wm. Taylor, Sen’r. 

940 Wm. Taylor, Jr. 

942 Edward Virtue. 

945 John M. Vanderslice. 
947 John Winters. 

956 Wesley Mann. 

957 John Robins. 

958 Thomas Shannon. 

959 James Tracy. 

960 Charles Phillips. 

963 George Manley. 

966 Edward Quinn. 

967 Jacob Knox. 

968 Wm. Kernan, Sen’r. 

969 Wm. Kernan, Jr. 

975 Benj. Paulin. 

976 R. D. Trapper. 

977 Garret Ruth. 

978 Violet Primrose. 

980 Edwurd McCue. 

982 Johnson Hempble. 

1000 James Whilly. 

1004 Richard Harred. 

1007 Timothy Arthur. 

1084 M. J. Lipman. 

1147 John Duddy.—— 29 


M. J. Vanderslice, produced. 


Jeremiah Robbins, produced. 


Geo. Mooney was Assessed. 


Moses Lipman, produced. 


Persons assessed whose names appear after 906, and 
corresponding names appear on the list of votes be¬ 
fore 906. 

935 Robert Brown, 

936 Wm. Farrell, 

949 Michael Porter, 

971 James Gorman, 

996 Daniel Downing, 

1050 Wm. Cyser, 

1071 James Day ley, 

1121 Patrick Mullin, 

1152 Robert Thompson, 

1151 Patrick Gallagher, * 

1147 John Duddy, 

1139 Patrick McKey—assessed Patrick McGee, 

1124 Wm. L. Harkins, 

1071 James Dayley.-14. 

RECAPITULATION- 

Persons assessed, voting after 906, - - . . - 92 

do do do but corresponding names voted before, 14 

do do do but the persons assessed produced and 

stated they did not vote, - . - 29 

Names on assessment list, and on list of voters after 906 - - . 135 

* 




6 


Persons referred to by John McFall in his testimony 

48 

Produced afterwards by Contestants, - - 10 


1. 

.1120 James O'Neal, Testimony page 66 . 

2 . 

1102 John Connely, 

do 

3. 

1097 William Long, 

do 

4. 

1108 William Morgan, 

do 

5. 

909 Jeremiah Manning, 

do 

6 . 

911 Wm. McCormick, 

do 

7. 

912 Chas. McColgan, 

do 

8 . 

914 James Boyle, 

do 

9. 

916 Owen Gallagher, 

do 

10 . 

918 John Duffy, 

do 

11 . 

919 James Dougherty, 

do 

12 . 

921 Henry McEhvee, 

922 James McGinnety, 

do 

13. 

do 

14. 

924 Samuel McGowan, ("produced by Contestants) 

do 

15. 

925 Andrew McQuillam, 

do 

16. 

926 Patrick McCahen, 

do 

17. 

927 John McCahen, 

do 

18. 

928 Patrick McGargan, 

page 67 

19. 

932 Patrick O’Brien, 

do 

20 - 

934 Thomas MeCloskey, 

do 

21 . 

935 Robert Brown, 

do 

22 . 

938 William Craig, 

do 

23. 

941 John R. Thompson, 

do 

24. 

943 Anthony Vance, 

do 

25. 

944 Calaghan McCarthy, 

do 

26. 

946 Andrew Vine, 

do 

27. 

947 John Winters, (poduced by Contestants,) 

do 

28. 

948 John Price, 

do 

29. 

949 Michael Porter, 

do 

30. 

950 Redman Penable, 

do 

31. 

952 James O’Neil, 

do 

32. 

955 Michael Lamb, 

do 

33. 

957 John Robbins, (produced by Contestants,) 

do 

34. 

958 Thomas Shannon, do do 

do 

35. 

963 George Manley, do do 

do 

36. 

964 James Neillis, 

do 

37. 

965 James Leiper, 

do 

38. 

966 Edward Quinn, (produced by Contestant,) 

do 

39. 

968 Wm. Kernan, Sr., do do 

do 

40. 

969 Wm. Kernan, Jr., do do 

do 

41. 

972 Morris Henry, 

do 

42. 

980 Edward McCue, do do 

do 

43. 

981 John Mirtland, 

do 

44. 

983 Charles Green, 

do 

45. 

984 Simon Farran, 

do 

46. 

1060 John Woods, 

1147 John Duddy, (produced by Contestants,) 

page 68 

47. 

a 0 

do 

48. 

1216 Geo. Brown, 

Witnesses as to time. 

do 

.ge of 

Testimony. Name of voters. Time of voting. Number on list of voters. 


10 Joshua S. Fletoher, about 9, 35 

20 John Landon, not later than 20 minutes past 9 , 97 

26 Jacob Spicer, 10 minutes before 12, 318 

37 Patrick McGranigan, between 12 and 1 , 443 


7 


Page of Testimony. 

49 

24 

145 

2 

2 

2 

220 

178 

23 

108 

97 

97 


iWme o/* voters. Time of Voting, dumber on list of voters. 


Hugh Callahan, between 12 and 1 , 589 

Benjamin Tomlinson, about 1 , 57 Q 

Officers of Election, between 1 and 2 , 546a50 

Benj. M. Shain, about 2, 433 

Chas. J. Shain, between 6 and 7, 681 

Edward Woods, quarter to 7, 7 16 

Hiram Lyons, at brink of lamp lighting, 774 

John Dubacee, saw Mr. Lyons vole at 0 P. M. 

Robert Cameron, about 8 , 810 

John Ferry, between 7 and 8 , 879 

James Breeson, at 8 , 886 

Wm. Pass, about 8 , 887 


List of Assessed Voters, who are marked on the 
printed list of Contestants, as not Assessed. 


11 John Driseunt. 

15 Robert Black. 

18 John Hart. 

20 J. F. McCahnan. 

25 Hugh Hart. 

37 James Divine. 

41 James A. Mathews. 
45 Patrick A. Fagan. 
57 Jas. McAmeny. 

76 Hugh Green. 

87 Wm. Gehan. 
llO Francis Killian. 

^13 Geo. Boyle. 

128 Philip Devine. 

130 Morris Slattery. 

140 Michael Lamb. 

179 Owen Kane. 

181 J. B. Vanosten. 

190 Robt. Lellar. 

191 John W. jCuthbert. 
215 Henry Hatherby. 
224 John Toner. 

232 Edward Lukins. 

251 John Mercer. 

257 Thoma Tulley. 

270 James Curley. 

289 Samuel Hollan 
593 John McGee. 

595 Jas. B. Anderson. 

596 C. J. McClellan. 

622 Joseph Andrews. 

623 Henry Dugan. 

627 John D. Smith. 

636 Alfred L. Kenady. 
657 John Boner. 

664 Hugh Mullen. 

668 James Boyle. 

669 John McAway. 

670 Michael Afee. 

689 Daniel McCollin. 

704 Patrick Bryan. 

707 Robert Dunn. 

708 Thos. S. Malcom. 
713 James Kane. 


296 

Dennis Gleson. 

462 

298 

Hugh Callaher. 

478 

301 

Michael McManus. 

481 

313 

Barney Duddy 

486 

315 

James McGillan. 

487 

316 

Robt. McFarland. 

491 

823 

John McGuire. 

496 

324 

Patrick Dalton. 

504 

330 

John Ceslow. 

506 

324 

John Lochary. 

509 

336 

Edward Pollock. 

512 

339 

Patrick Donnally. 

514 

343 

Charles Shirkey. 

515 

348 

John Donahue. 

522 

362 

Terrance Devit. 

529 

372 

Michael McGee. 

531 

375 

Wm. Lewyllein. 

536 

387 

Thomas Plunket. 

539 

389 

Patrick Loan. 

545 

402 

Edward Roney. 

570 

403 

Edward Holmes. 

574 

414 

Lewis Weidenmire. 

578 

422 

George Conn all. 

580 

442 

John B. Smith. 

589 

455 

Thos. J. Bennett.-54 

591 

772 

Charles McCafferty. 

592 

775 

John Friel. 


778 

Wm. Dugan. 


785 

John Mullin. 


791 

Charles Buckley. 


796 

Thos. Finnigan. 


797 

Charles Darnell. 


816 

Daniel McCluskey. 


819 

Wm. Roberts. 


823 

John 0‘Neal. 


824 

Henry McCluskey. 


829 

Thomas Jones. 


836 

PJichael Cochran. 


858 

Michael Hagan. 


923 

B. McKeever. 


947 

John W. Winters. 


950 

Redmond PrendivelL 


952 

James 0‘Neal. 


961 

Henry Yeats. 



Patrick J. Coy. 
Patrick McCluin. 
John McGonigal. 
Robt. Gillis. 

Geo. McCanaghy, 
Terrence Quinn. 
Hance Milligan. 
Edward McCalley 
Patrick Walls. 
John H. Eckey. 
Henry Crrnely. 
Horatio Hubbel. 
James M’Closkey. 
Felix Byrn. 

Wm. Kerns. 

James Sheriden. 
Francis McKenna. 
Charlis Tohill. 
Daniel Timmins. 
Benj. Tumelson. 
James Loughlin. 
Edward Gehan. 
Hugh Heany. 
Thos. Callahan. 
Harrison Carter. 
Lawrence Dolan. 


8 


717 

Michael Hagan. 

962 

George Mooney. 

722 

John Batesom. 

964 

James Neilis. 

723 

Patrick Mullen. 

973 

Cornelius McKee. 

725 

James Kerlin. 

982 

Johnson Hemphill. 

741 

Terrence Devitt. 

984 

Simon Farrin. 

750 

Wm. Benner. 

1005 

Wm. Dirtz. 

754 

Barney Duddy. 

1006 

James Cannan. 

758 

Thomas Finnegan. 

1008 

Wm. Evans. 

763 

L. Andrews. 

3011 

P. McKeever. 

766 

Michael Mullen. 

1121 

Patrick Mullen. 

768 

Wm. Sagee. 

1135 

Samuel Jones. 1 


John Plumb.—137 


Errors in Printed list of voters, furnished by Contest 


ants. 

On Printed List. 

On Original List of Voters. 

9 

H. Vogd, 

H. Vogo, assessed as 

Bogia. 

18 

John Hort, 

John Hart, assessed 

20 

G. F. McColmon, 

J. F. McCalman, 

do 

25 

Hugh Hort, 

Hugh Hart, 

do 

38 

Thomas JafFney. 

Tho. Taffney, 


41 

James A. Wothenl, 

Jas. A. Mathews, 

do 

44 

Tho. Sweeney, 

Tho. Savery, 


45 

Patrick A. Fagon, 

Patrick A. Fagan, 

do 

57 

Jas. McOnney,, 

Jas. McAnne}', 

do 

71 

Wm. McCllear, 

Wm. McAlear, 


87 

Wm. Gupon, 

Wm. Gahan, 

do 

110 

Francey Kellion, 

Francis Killion, 

do 

117 

Jno Kematon, 

Jno. Kernahan, 


126 

Lewis Zepman, 

Lewis Lipman, 

do 

376 

Arthur Travil, 

Arthur Travis, 

do 

177 

Adoulpts Smith, 

Adoulphs Smith, 

do 

179 

Owen Hone, 

Owen Kane, 

do 

191 

John Wehurbert, 

Jno. McChuberb, 

do 

192 

Jos. Neviland, 

Jos. Trieviland, 


224 

Jas. Tower, 

Jas. Toner, 

do 

245 

Henry E. Montgomery, 

Henry McGonemay, 

do 

251 

John Messer, 

Jno. Merser, 

do 

257 

Tho. Tilley, 

Tho. Tally, 

do 

284 

France Gain, 

Terence Gain, 

do 

301 

Michael McMearany, 

Michael McMenamy, 

do 

315 

Jas. M. Gillin, 

Jas McGillen, 

do 

316 

Robert M. Fadden, 

Robert McFadden, 

do 

323 

Jno. M. Genn, 

Jno. McGire, 

do 

324 

Patrick Dolton, 

Patrick Deelton, 

do 

334 

John Loughley, 

Jno. Loughlery, 

do 

343 

Chas. Shin key, 

Chas. Shirkey, 

do 

346 

Chas. McDowell, 

Chas. McColgin, 

do 

354 

Wm. Jimins, 

Wm. Timins, 


387 

Tho. Pumcet, 

Tho. Pluncet, 

do 

402 

Edw. Rowey, 

Edw. Roney, 

do 

403 

Edw. Homes, 

Edw. Holmes, 

do 

409 

Jas. Kan, 

Jas. Kurr, 

do 

42S 

Richard Binngen, 

Richard Berringer, 


436 

Onn Hamilton, 

Owen Hamilton, 

do 

463 

Patrick Cox, 

Eras. Coy, 

do 

469 

C. M. Gloulhelm, 

C. M. Glaulklin, 

do 

478 

Patrick McErlain, 

Patrick McClain, 

do 

481 

Jno. M. Gonigal, 

Jno. McGonigal, 

do 

487 

Geo. M. Conige, 

Geo. McConige, 

do 

501 

Edw. H. Wharton, 

Edw. H. Whatson, 

do 

529 

Wm. Keins, 

Wm. Kerns, 

do 


9 


589 Charles Zohid, 

570 Benj. Tomason, 
580 Hugh Hiary, 

591 Harison G. Carter, 
606 Felix Helperty, 
657 Jno. Bower, 

660 Patrick Addenis, 

668 James Doyle, 

669 Jno. McAnay, 

689 Danl. McColbum, 
707 Robert Doran, 

713 James Clain, 

741 T. E. Levitt, 

758 Tho. Firmegan, 
768 Wm. Sagee, 

829 Tho. Tower, 

923 P. McCeaver, 

932 Patrick Brien, 

950 Redman ParraMe, 
952 James C. Neill, 
961 Henry Years, 

973 Cornelius McGee, 
984 Simon Forum, 

1005 Wm.Deltz, 

1006 Jas. Canran, 

1017 Robert Degan, 

1018 Henry Can, 

1025 Edw. Nuller, 

1121 Patrick McMullen, 
1126 Jas. Mclnagen, 
1135 Samuel.Irwen. 
1145 Wm. Wisher, 

1150 Jas. M. Sallry, 
1154 Daniel Mudd. 

1182 John M. Gill, 

1196 Denis Norrison, 
1209 Jno. Plumley, 


Chas. Tohill, 

do 

Benj. Tomelson, 

do 

Hugh Henry, 

do 

Harris G. Carter, 

do 

Felix Heiferty, 

do 

Jno. Boner, 

do 

Patk. Addams, 

do 

James Boyle, 

do 

Jno. Me A way, 

do 

Daniel McCollun, 

do 

Robt. Doane, 

do 

James Cain, 

do 

T. E. Devitt, 

do 

Tho. Finnigan, 

do 

W. Lagee, 

do 

Tho. Jones, 

do 

B. McCeaver, 

do 

Patrick 0‘Brien, 

do 

Redman Penable, 

do 

Jas. 0‘Neill, 

do 

Henry Yeats, 

do 

Cornelius McKee, 

do 

Simon Fouren, 

do 

Wm. Detiz, 

do 

James Cannan, 

do 

Robt. Deacon, 


Henry Carr, 


Edw. Miller, 


Patrick Mullen, 

do 

Jas. McGuigan, 


Sami. Jones, 

do 

Wm. Wister, 


Jas. McSally, 


Daniel Nudd, 


Jno. McGill, 

do 

Denis Morrison, 


Jno. Plumby, 

do 

as Jno. Plumb. 


The following remarks in printed list of Voters, are 
alleged to be erroneous. 


911 

“ removed from 

the ward.” 


918 

“ proved not to have voted.” 

Three John Duffy’s are assessed in 1850, 

923 

do 

do 

and six in 1851. 

924 

do 

do 


925 

do 

do 


926 

do 

do 


945 

“ did not vote.” 



947 

do 


¥ 

955 

“ see No. 140.” 


Two of this name, Michael Lamb, were 

963 

“ did not vote.” 


assessed, and two voted.—140, 955. 

964 

do 


1011 

“seeNo. 923.” 


B. & P. McKeever are assessed, one voted 

1015 

“ did not vote.” 


at 923, the other at 1011. 

1058 

do 



1078 

do 



1081 

do 



1089 

“see No. 152.” 


Two of this name, John Hill, were as¬ 

1094 

“ did not vote.” 


sessed, and voted. 

1102 

do 



1152 

do 




10 


1158 M did not vote.” 

1198 do 

1217 “ see no 444.” Different names. 

Of those persons who say they voted for r. Reed, assessed, 124. 
As stated on Contestants’ List of Voters, not assessed, 13. 


Votes for Mr. Reed, 

an 1st page 

28, 


u 

a 

2nd “ 

21, 


u 

44 

3rd “ 

14, 


u. 

44 

4th “ 

17, 


II 

44 

5th “ 

23, 


tt< 

44 

6th “ 

13, 


at 

44 

7th “ 

14, 


uv 

44 

8th « 

7, 


u 

44 

9th “ 

3, 


a 

44 

10th “ 

2‘ 





142 


Assessed before 

No. 907, 


644 

Not “ 

44 

M it 


262 

Assessed 

after 

No. 906, 


135 

Not “ 

44 

44 


182 


Persons examined, to prove that they did not vote, 
whose names do not appear on the Schedule of 
names, annexed to the complaint. 

918 John Duffy, 

924 Samuel McGowan, 

933 James Agnew, 

937 Felix Bradley, 

939 Wm. Taylor, Sr., 

940 Wm. Taylor, Jr., 

942 Edward Vertue, 

945 M. Vanderslicc, 

947 John Winters, 

956 Westley Man, 

957 John Robins, 

958 Thomas Shannon, 

959 James Tracy, 

960 Charles Phillips, 

966 Edward Quinn, 

967 Jacob Knox, 

968s Wm. Kernan, Sr., 

969 Wm. Kernan, Jr., 

975 Benj. Paullin. 

976 Richard Trapier, 

978 Violet Primrose, 

982 Johnson Hempble, 

1000 James Wiley, 

1004 Richard Harod, 

1147 JohnDuddy. 25 


[\ f. 



a 


SPEECH 

OP 

ST. GEORGE TUCKER CAMPBELL, Esq. 


IN SUMMING UP 


THE CONTESTANTS 

IN THE 


CASE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

TJ. STATES STEAM-POWER BOOK AND JOB PRINTING OFFICE, LEDGER BUILDING. 


1851 



























. 























' 















. 































CONTESTED ELECTION CASE. 

Thursday, March 20th, 1851. 

BEFORE JUDGES KING, CAMPBELL AND KELLEY. 


SUMMING UP OF ST. GEORGE T. CAMPBELL, 

FOR THE CONTESTANTS. 

If your Honors please, I commence the argument of this case, 
to day, relieved from an embarrassment that weighed if not upon 

the Court, certainly upon myself, till within a few moments_the 

possibility that what I was about to say was to be useless, in 
consequence of the proposed step in the Supreme Court, I 
mean the application for a writ of certiorari to this Court. 
It gives me great pleasure to say, that the application made to 
that tribunal has within the past ten minutes been refused. We 
are thus disengaged from any embarrassment that can arise in the 
discussion of this case, from the supposition that a subsequent 
argument elsewhere may be required. 

I would have preferred that the duty I am about to perform, 
should have been discharged by one of my colleagues; but they 
have thought that my intimate acquaintance with the facts in 
this case, arising from continual attendance at the hearing, 
might be of some service to this Court—and that, not in the 



6 


great questions, but in those minor details which may relieve 
your Honors from great labor, I may be of essential use to you, 
I shall obey the suggestion that fell from the Court yesterday, 
and in opening this argument, will try mainly to aid the Court 
in this regard. I cannot, with justice to myself, proceed to that 
duty, without expressing what I feel, and what every other 
honest minded man in this community feels, my gratitude to this 
Court for the public investigation of this case. Bad men are 
chiefly governed by the fear of punishment and detection, and 
now that it is announced from this Court and by this Court that 
such investigations will take place, and that your Honors 
will resolutely and sternly examine these questions, rely 
upon it the liability of the recurrence of these frauds is greatly 
diminished. The theory of our government is founded on 
the faith which we all have in its elementary administration. 
All depends upon the popular vote being the truthful representa¬ 
tion of the popular will. I believe, that all w T e have of good 
depends upon this—that the honor, and the strength, and the 
happiness of our country, depend upon our being able to obtain 
shortly and certainly this truthful representation of the popular 
will—all the evils to which we are subject and the blessings 
we enjoy or claim to enjoy are derivable from that source. The 
limit of the direct expression of the popular will is becoming 
day by day more extended; and the direct influence of the 
decisions of the people are to affect, not simply as they hereto¬ 
fore have done, a few leading portions of our government—and 
the history of the past shows that such is the tendency of the 
future, and the direct appeal to the popular will is to be carried 
hereafter to an almost unlimited extent. It becomes therefore 
doubly important that these peaceful revolutions of ours, which 
it is our pride every year to look at, and which it is the 


7 


astonishment of all other countries to behold, that these peaceful 
revolutions should be so conducted as to command the faith of 
the people. It has been a question which I am not disposed to 
discuss, how best this truthful expression of popular will is to be 
obtained. Opinions abroad and at home differ on that subject. 
Some suppose that the vote by ballot is the true mode to obtain 
that truthful expression, and others think the only way is that it 
shall be done openly and boldly and by word of mouth. In some 
of the States of our Union, in the State of Virginia for instance, 
it would be considered beneath the dignity of a freeman to con¬ 
ceal his vote. How far such a system is preferable to that of 
Pennsylvania, or how far practicable^ it is not for me to discuss. 
From the earliest time, or at least ever since its form has been 
republican, the vote by ballot has been the vote maintained by 
the people of Pennsylvania. 

I cannot look at the disclosures which have taken place 
in the course of this case, and at the effect of them, with¬ 
out regarding this, as in fact a trial before the Court of our 
chosen system. We are here trying whether this constitutional 
provision of ours can be maintained—we are trying that in 
which must rest the power of our government—whether there 
does exist in one branch of it, the judiciary, the power to 
purify the rest, and without which, its death is positively cer¬ 
tain. If there does not exist in this form of government a power 
of self-purification somewhere—if these ballot boxes, which are 
the fountains whence flow all the good, the blessings and the 
happiness we enjoy, may be poisoned, and there can be found no 
antidote to stay the course of that poison, and no power to 
punish the criminal, then the body politic must soon rot and die. 
The faith of men begins to be shaken—they begin to say the one 
to the other, it is useless for us to go to the ballot box—it is 


8 


useless for me, the individual man, to place my vote there, fraud 
depriving it of its effect. It is the duty of your Honors, and it is 
within your power here to do that, which it has seldom been in 
the power of any Judges to do, to re-assure the community in 
the faith which they ought to bear to the institutions under 
which they live—to make them love,—and without they have 
confidence in, they cannot love—those institutions. I say that 
all that your Honor, who has been a quarter of a century on the 
Bench, has done is as nothing compared to what you can do now 
for the public good, and for your whole country. If the time 
shall come when these ballot boxes shall be opened, and fraud 
unpunished and uncondemned shall fly forth from them, even 
hope will not remain behind. I crave your Honors therefore 
to bear with me, while I proceed to drag you through the 
painful and tiresome details of this case. The patience with 
which the Court has already listened, is some token that they 
will give that minute attention required to the facts of the case, 
and I propose deliberately, carefully and methodically to inves¬ 
tigate each and all of them. 

I begin by calling your attention to the fact, that on the 3d 
of May, 1850, in furtherance of this general progress of things 
in our country, for the first time was it decreed by our people 
that an election should be held for a semi-judicial office—that of 
District Attorney. The law, to which it is unnecessary for me, 
for the present, to refer, provides, that upon the election of that 
officer, any contests in reference to his election shall take place 
in the same manner as is provided for county officers. The law 
relating to contested elections you will find at pp. 391 and 387 
of Purdon’s Digest, in act of 18th April, 1839. The Pennsyl¬ 
vania law of contested elections in legislative bodies, (to which 
this proceeding is assimilated,) although of recent date, originated 


9 


m what is called the Grenville act, passed in Parliament in 
or about 1768. The theory of that act was, that a large body 
of men were unfit to determine any question of this kind. It 
v as tiulj said that m such contests as this, before Parliament, 
“few attended the hearing, but all attended the decision.” 
Your Honors, if you feel the slightest anxiety to investigate 
the history of that act, which was introduced in Pennsylvania 
in 1791, will find it in one of two volumes of the debates of 
the House of Commons, known as the Cavendish debates. 
From 1768 to 1774 the doors of the House of Commons were 
closed against the public, and during that period no regular 
debates were published. A member of that body, Sir Henry 
Cavendish, who possessed the art of writing in short-hand, as then 
known, amused himself by reducing what was said to notes for 
private use. Many years after his death, in fact, not till within 
the last ten years, they were decyphered, and form two volumes 
of the debates of the House of Commons from 1768 to 1774. 
There you will find the motives which induced the British Parlia¬ 
ment thus to regulate the decision of contested elections. This 
is the origin of our law, which provides that the decision of the 
committee of the legislature shall be final—differing from the 
rule of the national legislature, where contested elections are 
decided very much on the principle of few attending the hear¬ 
ings, but all being; present at the decision. The law here provides, 
in the most minute manner, for the careful selection, by ballot, 
of the committee, and everything is done that can be done, to 
avoid the influence of partisan spirit. In this State, under these 
laws, so existing, an election took place on the 8th of October, 
1850. Suffer me, in my detail of the facts of this case, to call 
attention to one or two figures in reference to the result of that 
election. I do it more in reply to what was suggested in the 


10 


opening of my learned brother on the other side. By the return 
for District Attorney, Mr. Reed received 19,555 votes, Mr. 
Kneass 19,640 votes, Peter A. Browne 240, and W. R. Dicker- 
son 2633. I understood my learned brother in his opening to 
say that Mr. Kneass fell 700 behind his ticket. If you deduct, 
therefore, those 700 as men of Mr. Kneass’s party who gave 
their votes to Mr. Dickerson, you have 2173 as men of Mr. Reed’s 
party who gave their votes to Mr. Dickerson. If you add those 
2173 to Mr. Reed’s vote—if you add his erring friends to his 
true friends—you will find it amounts to 21,728 votes, and that 
the argument presented to this Court with reference to falling 
behind his ticket, arose from the fact that no allowance was made 
for the votes that Mr. Dickerson received. The successful can¬ 
didate for County Commissioner had but 21,344; the Canal 
Commissioner had 21,305. You will find that the argument on 
the other side is mistaken in supposing that Mr. Reed fell in 
any degree behind his ticket. It is not so. The sole difference ' 
arose from the abstraction consequent upon the third candidate. 
Such is the general result of that election. 

I propose, very briefly, to present to the Court a statement of 
the dates of the occurrences that immediately followed. On the 
18th of October, 1850, the petition was filed, and the 9th of 
November was assigned for the hearing. On the 5th of Novem- 

4 > 

ber, notice was given by our learned friends on the other side, of 
two motions. First, a motion to quash the petition, and second, 
a motion to strike out certain clauses of it. On the 9th of 
November, the argument on the motion to quash came before the 
Court, and cotemporaneously with it, a motion was made by us 
to amend the petition. On the 4th of February, an opinion was 
given by this Court, deciding, first, that the petition was origi¬ 
nally defective; second, that the amendment was allowable; 


11 


third, that certain of the specifications should be stricken out. 
Such was the decision of the majority of this Court. 

On the 12th of February, this laborious investigation began, 
and I am now before the Court, to maintain that the return 
which gives this office to the respondent is a false return. I am 
here to maintain, and this is my proposition, that a majority of 
the votes of the citizens of the city and county of Philadelphia 
was given for this office to Mr. Reed. I am ready under the 
decision of this Court to prove this, in a certain specified mode. 
But I should not hesitate, if it were necessary, to contend that 
if I had once obtained a status in this Court, and in the course 
of the investigation other frauds appeared, your Honors would 
consider them, punish them, and do justice in reference to them. 
But it is not necessary for me to go so far, because the evidence 
I have presented applies itself so accurately to the points to be 
decided, that it is not needful for me to ask you to widen one 
hair’s breadth the decision announced by the Court. 

It is proper first distinctly to understand the specifications which 
I am allowed by the permission of this Court to maintain. I am 
allowed to give evidence to maintain the second, which relates 
to the error in West Philadelphia, of fifty votes, and the error in 
Kensington of five votes. The error in West Philadelphia I have 
addressed testimony to, but to the error in Kensington I have 
given no evidence before this Court. I was allowed, second, 
to give evidence of the 15, 16, 17 and 19. These related to the 
First Ward, Moyamensing, and I desire to say to this Court, in 
reference to them, that after I had proceeded with my case upon 
the three other points, I thought enough had been presented, 
and I knew that with reference to the particular allegations 
in First Ward, Moyamensing, they would take more time for 
investigation than those we have already examined. But do 


12 


not let the learned counsel say that these things have been aban¬ 
doned in any other spirit than becomes any professional man who 
follows the wise rule of letting well enough alone. I pass them 
with this remark, and I say that I am allowed, third, to prove 
my twenty-third specification, referable to Penn District. I am 
allowed, fourth, to prove my third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eleventh 
and twelfth, and these relate to Second Ward, Moyamensing. 
This classification into four parts will be found convenient for 
the Court, as I have found it to be in my own preparation of the 
case. 

The fourth avers that 153 votes in Second W T ard, Moyamen¬ 
sing, were actually deposited for Mr. Reed, while but 94 were 
actually returned. The seventh avers that tickets voted for Mr. 
Reed were removed, and others with the name of Mr. Kneass 
upon them were substituted. The eleventh refers to the altered 
condition of the tally papers. The third and the sixth remain 
to be considered, and to them, I respectfully for an instant call 
your attention. The third avers that in this ward 243 names 
and upwards were added to the list of voters; the sixth avers 
that 243 votes and upwards of persons, not qualified voters, 
were received. In other words, the third sets forth that no such 
votes were cast; the sixth sets forth a false personation of the 
individuals. I pray the Court to regard these two as in their 
nature alternative, and that they must from the necessity of the 
case be so alternative. Let me make myself clearly understood. 
I see, for instance, the name of Violet Primrose, or any other 
such name upon a list of voters deposited in the office of the 
Court of Common Pleas, and I know that that man did not vote; 
I have then but one of two alternatives to present to this Court— 
either that this man’s name was added after the polls were 
closed, or, second, that he was personated while the polls were 


13 


open. I hope, therefore, that the Court will understand these 
two specifications as carefully drawn for that result. False per¬ 
sonation has not been opened by our friends on the other side— 
false personation has not been pretended by them. My case, 
however, is mainly upon the third specification—my case is, that 
the officers of this election were bold and bad men—my case is, 
that these 300 names were fraudulently added after ten o’clock 
at night. The alternative, the learned counsel if they desire to 
screen the officers may, if they please, take—the result to me is 
the same. I am either, therefore, under my theory of the case, 
to be heard on my third specification, or if these officers were 
deceived in reference to these 300 citizens, and supposed they 
were receiving votes of those entitled to vote, then it was a case 
of false personation, and the 300 votes fall as well, and the result 
to my case is precisely the same. 

I have thus stated to the Court the points under which I am 
authorized to give evidence, and I proceed now to the consider¬ 
ation of that which has been presented. The general return 
gives Mr. Kneass a majority of 85. I allege this to be false, and 
first, I propose to show that it is so by mere arithmetic, without 
any question of fraud; and to make my views in this regard in¬ 
telligible to the Court, I have prepared a statement expressive of 
my understanding of the arithmetic of this case. 


Mr. Kneass’s majority as returned, - 

- 

85 

Alleged mistake, Fourth Ward, Spring Garden, - 

- 

3 

“ “ Third Ward, Northern Liberties, 

- 

10 

“ “ Fourth Ward, Kensington, 

- 

7 



105 

Second Ward, Moyamensing, Kneass’s return, 

1097 


Count, 

1091—6 


Reed’s return, 

94 


Count, 

98—4 

10 



14 


Brought over, 

- 

10 

W. B. Reed, First Ward, West Philadelphia, 

- - - 

50 

Penn Township, Kneass’s return, - 

407 


Count, - 

377—30 


Reed’s return, - 

26 


Count, - 

53—27 

57 



117 



105 

Reed’s majority, 


12 


Mr. Kneass’s majority is returned as 85; the alleged mistake 
in Fourth Ward, Spring Garden, is 3; in Third Ward, Northern 
Liberties, 10; in Fourth Ward, Kensington, 7—making 105. I 
do not pause to consider the character of the crosses of one of 
the tens. I suppose that this, under the evidence, is past all 
controversy. I do not pause to consider the erasures in Fourth 
Ward, Kensington. As to the Second Ward, Northern Liberties, 
no evidence has been given in regard to it. I have, therefore, 
given to the Court these figures which I understand express the 
numercial calculations which have been introduced here. Now, 
I turn to my side of this account; first, West Philadelphia. I 
refer to page 48, to Mr. Enue’s testimony on that subject. 
I hold this to be beyond controversy—it is not my duty to 
suppose that contest in this regard is possible. That gentle¬ 
man distinctly stated that such was the fact, and, therefore, 
it is unnecessary for me to waste time in referring to it. The 
second error to which I wish to call attention, is that which 
resulted from counting these boxes. In Second Ward, Moya- 
mensing, by the returns, Mr. Kneass received 1097 votes—by the 
count, 1091—difference, 6. Mr. Reed, by the return, is allowed 
94—by the count, 98—difference, 4. The two together make 
an aggregate in Second Ward, Moyamensing, of ten. In Penn 
Township, by the return, Mr. Kneass has 407 votes—by the 


4 




15 


t 


count, 377—difference, 30. Mr. Reed, by the return, 26—by 
the count, 53—difference, 27; together, making 57 votes—the 
aggregate, 117. So that, by the mere exhibition of these 
figures themselves, there does exist a majority for Mr. Reed of 
12 votes, which passes and leaves untouched all questions of 
fraud—I say no more in reference to this—it is my duty simply 
to lay these facts before the Court. 

I come now to consider the second point to which I shall claim 
your attention. I shall consider my third and sixth specifica¬ 
tions, which relate to Second Ward, Moyamensing, or rather 
the third, for upon the third my case depends. My case is that 
316 names were added to the list of voters—I say that many— 
I do not say there were not others. I shall point to your 
Honors, when I come to examine, by and by, the manner in 
which this list is made out, places where I believe others are to 
be found—but I begin there because I find at 907 the name of 
Alexander Gillis, who died in June, ’49. I therefore commence 
there, feeling safe in at least stating to this Court that the last 
316 were added. I propose to prove that these votes were 
added in four distinct ways—first, by time , second, by the testi¬ 
mony of persons named on that list after 906 ; third, by, I may 
say, the political history of this ward —by its previous votes 
and previous numbers, and fourth, I propose to prove this fact 
by the total absence, on the part of the respondent, of that evi¬ 
dence which the nature and character of the case called upon 
him to produce, and which, if my allegation was not truthful, it 
was in his power in a thousand ways to contradict. 

I first call your attention to this matter of time. We have 
one paper by which time is to be decided—we have one list 
of voters left of the Second Ward, Moyamensing, and but 
one. That paper is a copy, or part of a copy, but in the 


16 


main, by common confession of all parties, this list of voters 
should truthfully express the order in which the votes were given. 
If there are trifling inaccuracies—if there are trifling discrepancies 
upon the question of time—I crave your Honors to bear in mind 
that they are not irreconcilable, having reference to the manner 
in which this paper was kept; but I shall present to you, sys¬ 
tematically, a body of evidence, in the main conclusive, upon 
what has not yet been denied—that this list generally represents 
the order in which men voted. We are now testing time, and 
we are to test it by the only record left for us. There will 
of necessity be found on every question of time like this, some 
trifling difference of memory between witnesses, but I propose 
to give a consistent body of evidence, in the number and 

character of witnesses, and in the circumstances to which they 
refer, which is overwhelming, to the effect that but 900 had 
been reached on that list of voters at ten o’clock at night, and 
this is the proposition that I propose now to prove. I have 
prepared for the convenience of this Court a time table, on 
which the voters who have spoken as to time are divided 
into four classes—first, those who voted from eight o’clock 
till ten, A. M., and you will find that they run consistently 
from 5 to 83. The next is from ten to three, and your 

Honors will find that that list begins at No. 50, and goes 
regularly on to 421. The next is from three to eight, P. 
M., and I propose to call your attention to one or two of 
these, to show the accuracy with which the whole body of the 
evidence is before the Court. B. Shain voted at two o’clock; 
J. D. George, 393, at 3, P. M.; J. C. Montgomery, 602, at 5 
o’clock; William Landon, 878, at 20 minutes to 10, P. M.; 
and when you add to this the testimony of Donald, (p. 229,) 

you will have a list of men whose character, interest and 



17 


feelings are separate, different and distinct. I submit that 
I have presented to the Court, on this subject, the testi¬ 
mony of thirty or forty respectable fellow-citizens of yours 
and mine, who have consistently detailed to us the hours 
at which they respectively voted; if any two, or any ten, 
or any twenty are true, then my proposition is maintained, 
to wit: that No. 900 was at the utmost the limit reached when 
the polls closed at ten o’clock, and this goes further to show 
what is indeed not disputed, that this list represents the order of 
the voters as given on that occasion. Now, if that stood by 
itself, and the testimony of these witnesses is uncontradicted, no 
judicial or layman’s mind can come to any but one conclusion in 
reference to it. But there are said to be three inconsistencies. 
With this time table before you, and the printed list of voters 
which I now hand to your Honors, I propose to examine the 
inconsistencies which are alleged in this theory of time. They are 
three—first, two young men, named Pass and Breeson, whose 
votes were numbered 886 and 887, (p. 96,) and who testified 
that they voted in the neighborhood of eight o’clock. I say 
that this is a mistake, and I propose to call your attention to 
the easy capacity of our learned friends to strengthen it, if it 
were not. They have put it upon the testimony of two young 
lads, on an election night. Now, I propose to show, that if 
this had been correct, there was in the hands and under the con¬ 
trol of our friends the conclusive means for proving it. Turn to 
the close of page 96, to the question put to James Breeson on 
cross-examination there: 

“Question .—Do you know Michael Breeson? 

“ Answer .—I know him. I don’t know at what time he voted. 
He is an uncle of mine, I believe. He lives in Milton street, 
between Tenth and Eleventh.” 



18 


Look at 901 on the list of voters, and there you will find the 
name of Michael Breeson. His name was designated, his con¬ 
nection with the young man is pointed out, and one of two 
conclusions I have a right to draw from the skill and capacity 
of those with whom I am opposed. Either he didn’t vote at all, 
or, if he did, his account of the time was different from these two 
lads, frolicking upon an election night. There is another thing 
I wish to call your attention to: Breeson says in his testimony, 
“I saw William H. Fagan and several more.” Now Mr. Fagan 
has been here upon this stand, upon a question as vital as this 
question of time to our friends on the other side. Was he asked 
with reference to these young men? Never. I pass now to 
the other allegation of mistake. Mr. Kelley, No. 144, testi¬ 
fied that he voted about one o’clock; he is one of our witnesses. 
Mr. Benjamin Tomlinson, No. 571, stated that he voted about 
one o’clock. I propose to show that the error of Tomlinson is 
one of those accidental errors that any man might make. I 
will call attention for that purpose to the testimony of those 
who were in the neighborhood of Kelley, but who correspond 
with him, and the testimony of those in the neighborhood of 
Tomlinson, who differ from him, to show that this is an acci¬ 
dental error which any man might fall into. At No. 154, William 
Smith, p. 21 of the testimony; 158, John Skill, p. 27; 178, 
Charles Darnell, p. 24; 187, J. M. Thomas, p. 30:—these all 
are in the neighborhood of 144, and correspond with the testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Kelley as to one o’clock. Now I turn to those in 
the neighborhood of Mr. Tomlinson; 569, J. H. Hutt, p. 28; 
584, Hassen, p. 10; 602, Montgomery, p. 2, all refer to a later 
hour. Thus I show that it was an accidental error in 
Tomlinson in fixing a point of time. The third and last is 
Moses Henry, which is the only inconsjstency than remains; his 


19 


testimony is in p. 97. I must ask one of your Honors to take 
the original list of votes in your hands. There are three names 
that ha\ e from time to time been supposed to represent Moses 
Henry. One is at 783 that I don’t regard as his name—804 
is the next one I call your attention to—the third is 972, to 
which our friends attempted to attach this man’s name—at 804 
you will observe his first name is correct—our friends seek to 
throw us into inconsistencies by attaching it to 972—that is the 
name of Morris Henry. I say this man voted at 804, where his 
first name alone is correctly put; and that that truthfully 
expresses his vote. Suffer me to turn you to his testimony at p. 
97. “I voted as near 9 o’clock as I can recollect.” If he 
voted at 972 at nine o’clock, deduct 972 from 1223 and there 
are 251 votes to be deposited between 9 and 10 o’clock. That 
exceeds the Moyamensing scale even, and they were vouched 
voters, for the last 211 do not rejoice in the feeble honor of 
being on the assessment list. There is another thing—he says 
that Edward Develin went with him, and your Honors will find 
that man at No. 800, and at 804 is the first name of this man 
correct. See how by this you confirm Mr. Landon, who is No. 
878 at twenty minutes before ten; take 804 at nine, and you 
make him consistent with the whole body of the testimony. I 
have thus gone through with these alleged inconsistencies. 

I have handed to the Court my table of time, and I conceive 
that Moses Henry is one of the strongest witnesses to support 
Mr. Landon. To take time in another aspect—when did these 
polls open ? Taking them to have opened at 8 o’clock, from 8 
A. M. to 10 in the evening is 14 hours, or 840 minutes; or take 
it at 9, according to my friends’ admission, and there were only 
780 minutes; 1223 votes are said to have been received in that 
780 minutes;—600 men were vouched for and sworn, and 



20 


* 


produced testimony or were known to the officers. It cannot 
be. Look at it, and bear it in mind when I shall turn 
attention to these statistics of Moyamensing. We know that 
of the last 300 there was nobody known to the officers, and 
therefore at least 300 men had to be sworn before they could 
be admitted. Take this calculation of time and bear in mind 
the body of respectable men who sustain it, and there can be 
drawn but one conclusion from it—that at about 900 the clock 
tolled ten. 

Now I come to the second branch of what I propose to prove 
—those persons after 900 on the list of voters who proved that 
they did not vote. Recollect, that though I separate these 
things one from the other for convenience of discussion, yet that 
they are really tied together—see how the time is strength¬ 
ened by the fact that I am capable of producing before this 
Court man after man, after 900, who did not vote. The law, 
that the citizen may detect fraud, puts at his command, first, 
the assessment list; second, as soon as the election is over, the 
list of voters deposited among the public records of the county, 
and open to the inspection and examination of every man caring 
to look at it. When I go, after an election, to look upon the 
list of voters, and I find a name there, and I find the same name 
upon the assessment list, the first presumption is that the man 
assessed is the man who voted, and I go then to the citizen 
named, and ask him, first, “ I find your name on the list of 
voters, what time did you vote V 9 to see if it is there in its 
order; second, £t Did you vote at all ?” and when I find he 
did not, I have what the law intended I should have. What 
more conclusive evidence is it in the power of man to give of 
fraud, than his contradiction in this of the list of voters ? The 

law intended I should have, but I have it not here—a third 

♦ 

A 



21 


thing an assessor s book, with his letter v opposite the names 
of all who voted, so that I could identify the person with the 
voter. I have not that. I take the liberty of handing to the 
Court a list of the names of those who did not vote, with the 
pages of their testimony, for convenient reference. When the 
list of voters in the Prothonotary’s office was examined, after 
the election, the name of Violet Primrose was seen. The 

interpolation of -such a name as this was a great mistake_it 

was worse than a crime—it was a blunder. That man was 
out of the city, and a telegraph within the ten days told 
us that he had not voted; further inquiry was stimulated, and, 
made alive to examination, we traced out remarkable names, 
such as Garret Ruth , Edward Virtue , the Rev. Mr. Trapier, 
and our attention being once directed by the marked names, we 
did what the law intended we should do—we looked at once for 
the men. I crave your attention to this list. Of the 39 on the first 
page, there are but 11 not on the assessor’s list, so that 28 are 
located, and we call the men here before the Court. Let us see 
who they are. William Taylor, Sr., and William Taylor, Jr.; 
they had moved out of Moyamensing long before, and gone to 
Southwark. Look at William Kernan, Sr. and Jr. Look at 
Charles Moss, and turn, when you look at that name, to Ring- 
land’s testimony. He looks at the list, finds Charles Moss, 
and tells us he is in Court, and to be found and to be produced, 
and we wait and he is not produced, and we produce him, and 
he turns out to be a man who never voted in America. When 
you come to consider this list, I pray you to divide in 3 /our 
minds those we produced in the outset and those we were en¬ 
abled to produce by the identification offered by our friends on 

the other side. Look at the Rev. Mr. Trapier , Frederick 
2 


22 


Offer man, Timothy S. Arthur , George Manley , Wesley Mann — ' 
a name well kown and a man well known—these men swear 
they did not deposit a vote in the ballot boxes. Benjamin 
Paullin was the deaf and dumb man. When he w'ent to vote, 
how did he vote? How did he communicate his name, his 
ballot, and his residence to the officers of the election ? If his 
vote had been recollected by that peculiarity, it would have 
been a striking circumstance. But, no, sir. His name is here, 
but did he vote?—did any one of these men vote? Eight more 
stood at your Honors’ bar, and they were objected to and 
rejected, because not under the rigid rule of rebutting evi¬ 
dence. It is useless for me to go over this thing—it is a sort 
of testimony that speaks more than counsel can utter. Tell 
me how they came there—explain how it was that you have 
taken 28 assessed men, and every one of them repudiates 
his name! Now, having called your attention to this, I simply 
solicit you to connect it in your minds with my first point, as to 
time; and I pause for a moment to examine the construction— 
the mechanical construction—of this window list. I am first 
struck, in studying it, with the wonderful duplication of men’s 
names; 918 and 902, two John Duffys; 923 and 1011, two 
P. McEavers; 934 and 353, two Thomas McCloskeys ; 955 and 
140, two Michael Lambs —I shall say a word about him pre¬ 
sently—996 and 684, two Daniel Downings; 1013 and 34, two 
John Murrays ; 1050 and 133, two William Keysers; 1071 and 
161, two James Dayleys; 1128 and 219, two Thomas Pattons; 
1216 and 196, two George Browns . But there is another pecu¬ 
liarity that I desire to call your attention to. It is their being 
taken so peculiarly from the assessment list. If you will look on 
that list of voters at 923, 924, 925, 926, I will read from the as- 


S 


23 


sessment list which I hold in my hand— P. McCeaver, Samuel 
McGowan , Andrew McQuillan and Patrick McCann. They 
every one of them live in different places, yet they all vote, one 
immediately after the other. Among the many things a man 
receives in the course of a case like this, it was my pleasure to 
receive a nameless communication from a gentleman, evidently 
skilled m mathematics, to show that the chances of such a thing, 
honestly, are one in I will not undertake to say how many hun¬ 
dred thousand. You find here four names, and I find precisely 
the same names, in the same order, on the assessment list. One 
of these men we have called—Samuel McGowan—who swears' 
he did not vote. Now we have, first, the duplication of names; 
second, names taken from the assessment list, in their order, and 
third, the number of people not assessed, who voted. Of the 
last 211, not a man.is assessed. I find among the last names 
some are assessed, but the same names have been once before on 
the list, and the same man is not assessed twice by the same 
name. The same peculiarity, save one, is discernible in Mc¬ 
Mullen’s, marked thirty; from 214 to 235, they are not as¬ 
sessed, except one. It is proved to this Court, that between 208 
and 235, there is a clump of names written by McMullen, and 
but one is assessed, and not one can now be found. But there 
is another strange peculiarity connected with this list. From 
904, which is about the time I allege voting ceased, there is not 
a man votes in reference to the constitution of his country. 
Votes for the Amendment were scarce, very scarce; but whether 
scarce or not, it is a circumstance that cannot fail to strike the 
attention of this Court. That was a subject about which, if 
evil things were doing, men thought but little; it was a subject 
in reference to which there were no personal or political predi- 


24 


lections to gratify; but in reference to which there exists this 
most extraordinary and unexplained circumstance, that one- 
fourth, nearly, of all these voters, in one solid lump, not one 
man has deposited a vote for the Amendment to the Constitution. 
If you will trace McMullen’s, 30, you will find just such ano¬ 
ther. clump; not a man of them voted on the Amendment. 
Suffer me to say, that actually there are on that list of voters 
566 men who are marked as having voted for the Amendment, 
while the return shows only 449—117 votes having disappeared. 
Thirty-nine voters swore they did not vote, and nine more are 
proved to have left this ward. I ask you, how did their names 
come upon the list of voters? Give me a theory—give me a 
reason—an explanation. False personation will do no good to 
the case, though it may to the officers; but, honestly, how did 
these names get there? 

I turn, then, from that second branch of the question I have 
discussed to the third. I want to give a page of the political 
history of Moyamensing—not its bloody but its peaceful 
history. Every man in the city of Philadelphia knows, that, 
for some cause or other, that place has been a disgrace to our 
Commonwealth and to our country; that lawless violence and 
murder have run riot there; that honest men paused before 
they ventured out of their houses, in this the 19th century; 
that Insurance Companies hesitated before they would insure 
property, and it ‘depreciated, and men left it. I turn to a 
few peaceful statistics of Moyamensing, as part of the political 
history of my country. The assessment list in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, in 1849, was 1335; in 1850, it got up to 
1544; the increase is 95 on the original, and 114 on the extra 
assessment. 


25 


I now crave your attention to the increase of votes in Second 
Ward, Moyamensing. 


1848— Governor’s election, aggregate, - 

cc Presidential, “ “ . _ 

1849— Sheriff’s, « « _ 

1850— Dist. Attorney, e< « _ 

In one year, from 1849 to 1850, the increase of assessments is, 
“ “ “ the increase of voters is, 


774 

855 

722 

1223 

209 

501 


Let any politician, who has the great experience of our 
learned friends, point to a similar case if it can be found, of the 
wonderful augmentation of suffrage. The increase in one year, 
in the Fifth Ward, Moyamensing, was 27; in Fourth Ward, 
38 ; in Third Ward, there was a decrease of 27; in First Ward, 
an increase of 158, and in-Second Ward, an increase of 488! 
Compare this table with what I have already called to your 
attention, and see if it be not consistent throughout. 

I now come to the fourth point: which is the total absence 
of evidence on the part of the respondent, which the nature of 
the case called upon him to produce, and which, if our case was 
not truthful, it was in his power to present. Of any case I have 
ever known presented to a Court of Justice, this was the easiest 
of destruction—it was the easiest of absolute pulverization. We 
went upon a principle which, if it had not been true, left 450, 
I think I may say that many—individuals who could have con¬ 
tradicted it. I charged that the last 315 names on this list of 
voters were put there after the polls closed; the last 211 were, 
under the testimony given to this Court by the officers of the 
election, either known to them or vouched for. Forty-eight, I 
have presented to this Court out of that 315, and I call upon 
the counsel on the other side to produce me one. If this was 
not truthful, how easy was it of detection? If one decent, well 



26 


known, honest, respectable citizen, between 906 and 1223, could 
have stood here in this Court, and be sworn that he voted, 
there might have been something to contend about; they have 
not produced one solitary man. There was the list of voters. 
On the 18th of October my petition was filed—five months and 
better have passed—find me a man among them who will have 
the audacity to stand here and pledge his oath that he voted on 
the 8th of October last. There have been two attempts to do 
this; one I have disposed of in considering the question of time— 
I mean Moses Henry, and I have shown he was No. 804 ; I now 
come to the other attempt. I am sure my learned brother in 
reference to that man was deceived himself; I know that from 
the way he has managed this and all other cases, he would 
not knowingly deceive this Court. George Gurrel was pro- 
duced, and you were told that his name was at No. 1066, 
(George Girl,) and that was the hope of our learned friends. 
Turn to his testimony at p. 176. The witness, says Mr. Hirst, 
is No. 1066; he says “I voted at the last general election a 
little after 9 o’clock”—mark that one thing ; “ the only one I 
saw there, I knew, was Mr. O’Neill”—mark that another thing. 
When I came to cross-examine him, I asked him how he 
pronounced his name, and he said Gurrel; look at 700 and 
there is George Gurrel. But that is not all; Hugh O’Neill was 
beside him; look at 691, there is Hugh O’Neill, who is called 
upon the stand by our learned friends, and he says, “I saw 
Gurrel on the ground,” and our friends did not ask him if he 
voted at the same time. I call your attention first to the time, 
nine o’clock, at No. 700; second, to Hugh O’Neil, who is 691; 
and third, that the man’s name stands there, written as he would 
pronounce it—for these clerks took down, not their pronuncia¬ 
tion but his own. These are the only two men pretended 


27 


to be before the Court,—Moses Henry and George Gurrel. 
Where are the rest of them? Where are they? Why, sir! 
three hundred Lacedaemonians went to Thermopylae, and even 
from that bloody fight, our boyish classics tell us, that J one 
wounded soldier staggered home; and I think we are told 
there besides, that his people, outraged that he had not 
poured out all his heart’s blood where his brethren died, 
rose up and slew him. These three hundred Spartans have 
taken warning by the fate of that returned soldier, and 
they have died to a man upon the field. Died!—if your 
Honors please, I beg pardon, they did not die, because death 
will leave the body still—they became etherial—no mortal 
man can see them—no man can touch them—no man can 
find them. I thought at one time, in the smoke of this 
combat, that I saw one soldier coming this way, and he 
rejoiced in the peaceful name of Michael Lamb, and goes here 
by the number of 955. If your Honors please, he was led by 
the Knight of the Lantern, Mr. Dennis Loughlin, into the tent 
of the learned leader of our opponents, (Mr. Hirst,) and even 
his leechery could not bring him out alive—for he never came 
here. I call attention to this as a speaking fact. I refer to 
the testimony of Loughlin, who said Michael Lamb was at Mr. 
Hirst’s office. He was there; he is not here, and I have a 
right to draw those conclusions which every just minded man 
would draw, that if he could have been here safely he would. At 
955, is the same name as 140, and I am inclined to think that if 
Michael Lamb had come here, it would have been early in the 
morning that he voted—inconsistent with 955. He is not here. 
I called attention a little while ago to Michael Breeson, pointed 
out by his nephew, at 901. His home, his place of residence is 
known, but he is not here. These two men exist—they are not 


28 


here. Bear in mind, that any one man could have destroyed 
our case if it was not honest. Do not let me press too hard on 
our friends for the non-production of these witnesses in Court, 
till I call attention to the circumstances of the case. On the 
18th of October, I spread upon the record the very names of 
the men whom I charged with having been fraudulently and 
falsely added to the list. For five months has that paper been 
in their possession ; for five months have they had an oppor¬ 
tunity to look for, to find, and produce some of these patriots— 
there is no one here. They have had, beside that, the list of 
voters open to them all that time; they have had, in the course 
of this investigation, sitting at their side, an advantage that we 
cannot possess—they have had the Assessor beside them—the 
very man who of all men should know every spot, and place, 
and house, within his peculiar jurisdiction. He is the very man 
to be able to designate and to produce, if they exist, any one of 
these missing heroes. To that same Assessor, in the face of 
this Court, was handed the list of the last three hundred, with a 
direction from the Court that he should examine it, and mark 
every name he knew; but the information we hoped to have 
from it followed the voters—it was never seen or heard of after¬ 
wards. Mr. McFall dare not open his lips on this perilous 
subject. We have one thing, however, and that is the assess¬ 
ment book of 1851, to which I am going to call your attention. 
I mean the assessment made in 1850, for 1851, immediately after 
this election, by the same John McFall himself, returned to the 
County Commissioners’ Office for taxation purposes—proved by 
him, and given in evidence by me. Now, bear in mind, we have 
produced all the men whom we could find, and we look to our 
learned friends to produce some others, and we are driven to 
this assessment book to see if John McFall knows where any of 



29 


these men live. Let us see who they are, and where they live: 
At p. 51, of the Assessment Book, is John Duffy; p. 20, 
Samuel McGowan; he was before the Court—he did not vote; 
p. 447, is Felix Bradley— he did not vote; p. 292, is Edward 
Virtue— he did not vote; p. 144, John Winters— he did not 
vote. John Robbins , at 398, did not vote. Charles Phillips, 
215 ; 186, Benjamin Paullin , the deaf and dumb man ; Violet 
Primrose, 402 ; Edward McCue, 446 ; every one of these men 
has been here before the Court, and sworn they did not vote. 
At 430, is Johnson Hemphill; 458, is James Wylie; 262, 
Richard Marred; 287, Timothy S. Arthur. You will per¬ 
ceive that those to whom I have called your attention are those 
whom I have produced, and whom Mr. McFall has there 
written down, with their places of abode. They are on the list 
of voters after 906. I now turn to the other branch, and desire 
to give the names of persons after 908, who are on that assess¬ 
ment list, but have not been before the Court. Charles McCol - 
gan, 912 ; Michael Lamb, 955; James Potter, 962. I refer 
your Honors to twenty-two men besides, who were after 900 on 
that list of voters, whose names are in that Assessment Book of 
1851. There are then two classes : first, those I have produced 
who were assessed by McFall; second, those whom he has 
assessed, whom he must have known—whom he could have 
produced. There is not one of them before this Court. 

Now we come to another thing that our learned friends have 
had; they have had every one of these officers of the election, 
fast friends by that which binds men close together—their 
own consciousness of peril. Let me turn to McMullen’s testi¬ 
mony, at p. 128. Just think of thj^l man’s condition before this 
Court, and tell me, when he told your Honors such a tale as this, 
if he was not conscious in his sot^hat it was useless to search. 


30 


<< Question. —Have you since the election seen the list of voters after 907 ? 

“ Answer. —Yes, sir. I saw a copy of them about two or three weeks ago. 

“ Question. —Have you made exertion to find any of these gentlemen? , 

“ Answer. —I saw on the list a man’s residence that I knew, and I went to 
see if I could see him. His name was on this list, and I took the Assessor’s 
list, and looked on it, and found out where he lived, and went to see him. 

“ Question. —How many others did you look for? 

“ Answer. —For some few more, but I didn’t pay attention to them, only 
hunting them. I took the list in my hands, and looked at it, to see if I 
knew any of the names on it, and then I took the Assessor’s list and compared 
• them. I saw a great many on that list that were on the Assessor’s list. I 
went to one man, and tried to see him, but he was not at home. 

“ Question. —Did you go to any other man ? 

“ Answer. —I think I did. I didn’t go to more than three out of the whole 
of them. 

“ Question. —"Will you favor me with those three names ? 

“ Answer. —That I don’t remember. I can tell you where they live, but I 
don’t remember their names. 

“ Question. —Where do they live ? 

“ Anstver. —In Milton street, between Tenth and Eleventh; the three lived 
there. I cannot give the name of any of the three. 

“ Question. —Did you look any further than for three ? 

“ Answer. —Yes, sir; I looked over the list. 

“ Question. —Did you look through the ward ? 

“ Answer. —These are the only three I went and looked for. I went to 
look for them about ten days or two weeks ago. 

(e Question —You knew their names when you went to look for them ? 

“ Answer. —I had them on a piece of paper. I took it off the list myself. 

“ Question. —Did you see any one of them ? 

“Answer. —No, sir, not one. They told me they had moved out of the 
ward since the election. The man at the house where they lived. I don’t 
know the man’s name. I don’t remember in what part of the list I found 
those three names.” 


My case is no half-way case. It goes upon no doubtful prin¬ 
ciple. It goes upon the ground that they, the officers, have com¬ 
mitted fraud. Not one man could they find, and these are not 
all the men that searched. Di^jtssee made a search, (page 64.) 


31 


He knew two George Browns; George Brown is not here, and 
I suppose it is not doing injustice to Dubassee to say that if 
George Brown would have testified he voted at night instead of 
at ten or eleven in the day, he would have had him here. I 
suppose the same spirit that led to writing eleven names in a 
minute, would have led to the production of one of these Spar¬ 
tans. Look also at the mode in which Mr. Murphy made his 
search. 


“Mr. Campbell.— Give the name of anyone that you saw vote between 
twenty minutes before ten and ten o’clock? 

“ Witness .—I cannot; for the crowd was so great that I could not push up 
to see the voters. I could not name one man. I cannot give the name of 
any other man who voted about nine o’clock. Henry Dugan voted between 
twelve and two o’clock. I know him and saw him vote. I know two of that 
name—himself and his uncle. I don’t know of any other man of that name. 
One voted, but I am not aware that the other did. 

“ Question. —Did you search for some of the persons whose names were on 
this list, among the last 250 or 300 ? 

16 Answer. —I did; I found several.” 

“Mr. Hirst. —This is certainly not cross-examination. 

“Judge King. —He may inquire whether he was engaged in hunting up 
any of the persons whose names are at the termination of that list, but he 
cannot ask what he ascertained from them, for it would not be evidence on 
either side. 

“ Witness. —I went to look for some of the persons whose names are in the 
last 300 on the list of voters, on Saturday last. I went to several parts of the 
ward. 

“ Question. —Give me the places? 

“ Mr. Hirst. —I object to wasting time in this way. 

» 

“Judge King. —If he can show where these parties can be found, they can 
settle the question. 

“ Witness. —The parties we did find have been subpoenaed, and will be 
here—all that we found that were voters, have been subpoenaed here. We 
went to several houses, and the individuals had removed to JSTew York, and 
other places. 

“Mr. Campbell. —All that you saw and conversed with were subpoenaed? 

“ Witness. —All that we saw that had voted at the election. Those we 


32 


didn’t see we could not subpoena. I did nothing but stand by while they 
were subpoenaed. 

“Mr. Campbell. —Was every person whom you did stand by and converse 
with on this subject, subpoenaed? 

“Witness .— Yes; all that voted at the election. We didn’t see any that 
did not vote. All that we saw that had voted or said they had voted, we sub- 
- poenaed. We did n’t find any who said they had n’t voted whose names were 
on the list. Some had removed here and there. 

“Mr. Campbell. —You went to a certain number of individuals, and every 
one you saw whose name was on your list there, you subpoenaed ? 

“ Witness. —Every one who said they had voted. 

“ Mr. Campbell. —Then there were some others whom you did see that you 
did not subpoena? 

“ Witness. —No, sir. All we saw and who said they had voted, and whose 
names were on the list, I subpoenaed? .. 

“ Judge King. —Did you subpoena every person whom you found, whose 
name was on the list of voters ? 

“Witness. —Yes, sir. 

“Question. —Did you subpoena every person on that list that you found? 

“Answer. —Yes, sir—I tell you, that he said he had voted—some we could 
not find—we found none that were on that list, to say they didn’t vote. 

“ Mr. Campbell. —Every person on your subpoena that you were able to 
find, you summoned, whether he said he voted or not ? 

“Answer. —No, sir—not whether he said he voted or not. We found none 
that said they did vote, but we subpoenaed them. 

“Mr. Campbell. —Did you see a man named William Craig? 

“ Answer. —I don’t recollect. 

“Mr. Campbell. —Did you see a man named John Duffy? 

“ Answer. —I don’t recollect. 

“Mr. Campbell. —John Wood, in Hall, between Tenth and Eleventh streets ? 

Answer .— I don’t recollect seeing him. 

« 

“Mr. Campbell .— James Neillis? 

“Answer. —No. I was not out in his part of the Ward. 

“Question. —Wm. Keyser? 

“Answer.— No, sir; nor Patrick Bryan, nor Edward Hunter. I saw An¬ 
drew McQuillan; the other man subpoenaed him. I don’t recollect seeing 
John Robbins, nor James Lansdoune, nor John Stone, nor William Morgan, 
nor Moses Lipman, nor Charles Moss, nor Wm. Green, nor Robt. Jones, nor 
John Ralston, nor John Dunn, nor Edward McClue, nor James Potter.” 










33 

He found three or four—where are any of them? not one is 
here. He has been to.find them, and he comes back more emi¬ 
nently dark than before; for no man is produced. I call atten¬ 
tion to the long time our friends have had with the names before 
them, and they have the officers of the election and active busy 
friends, and I ask why it is that no man is before this Court ? 
How did those names came upon that list of voters ? They say 
“we cannot produce any, but we have heard of several.” I 
think we have heard of five, and all of them are congressmen, 
emphatically. A man named Yertine they speak of. Where 
is Yertine—where is he to be found ? Absolute darkness. Jacob 
Mayland is the second gentleman. I don’t care whether he 
was the oysterman who died on the wharf or not. Wurteim said 
such a man drove an oyster wagon for Charles Clare. I sent to 
Clare’s, and he said no such a man worked for him. Then there 
is a man named William Bradford, who is heard but not seen— 
nobody saw him. Look at pages 75 and 8, and you will find 
they heard a man named William Bradford vote, but nobody saw 
his face. The last of these men is one rejoicing in the name of 
Samuel Mullegrew, No. 1222. This is a witching time in the case, 
our friends ought to be very right here. But what a blunder it 
was to bring two men to prove he voted. Turn to McMullen’s 
testimony (p. 121), it seems Mullegrew was a weaver, and at the 
time of the election lived in Seventh street, between Shippen and 
Fitzwater. Then turn to 193, to Mooney’s account, and tell 
which is to be 1222. One says he lived in Seventh, between Ship- 
pen and Fitzwater streets, and was a weaver, and the other in 
Bedford, below Eighth, and was a tailor. Well, the same man 
cannot well live in two places at once—which of these two men 
is the man ? Lea Bunker , seen, but not here, is the last of these 
invisible spirits. Why is there not some one decent man named ? 


i 



34 


Why is not a traceable man named, who has a home, a status in 
the community. Why is there not a man that has a family, a rela¬ 
tive, a place in which he can be found ? Why is there not some 
account given of one respectable citizen who is not a “ congress¬ 
man ?” Bear in mind that these men are not on the assessment 
list of 1850 or ’51—not a man whose home can be traced out. 
But there are three hundred men, their names and homes said to 
be known, and not one do you hear of, but you hear of men who 
walk the water and leave no trace of their footsteps. 

I now refer to the absence of that testimony which the nature 
of the case required our friends to produce. How my case ought 
to be met, how it could be met, every lawyer know's, and no man 
better than my learned brothers here. They prove there was a 
crowd at the polls. Well, I care not whether there was a crowd 
at the polls or not. I want one of the men that made the crowd. 
They produce Dubassee to prove that eleven names could be 
written in a minute. Then they produce Coughlin, to prove that 
old Mr. Gillis said he didn’t mean to vote ; and they produce 
Waun, who swore that though he had not seen a man for eighteen 
years, yet when he did, he was incapable of recollecting five 
minutes. They produce Coughlin, to prove about Barton, and he 
didn’t recollect his first name. They produce Fagan, who is 
sworn to have vouched for some of these men, but they did not 
ask him for whom he vouched. With the exception of the offi¬ 
cers of the election, the whole of this case lies in generals, with¬ 
out one particular individual thing to maintain it. Up to this point 
of the case, we have no explanation of my question — (C How 

came these three hundred names there ?” The residue of this 

• 

case, so far as the defendant is concerned, rests upon the officers 
of this election, and I desire to submit one or two view r s to the 
Court in reference to them. If my case is true, they are not trust- 





35 


worthy men. If my case is true, they were made guardians of 
the public but to deceive it. As your Honor said, in your charge 
to the Grand Jury, sometime ago, the man who tampers with the 
ballot boxes of his country, commits a crime second only to 
murder. It wants the boldness of overt treason—it is murder 
by poison—the meanest and most cowardly kind of murder. If 
my case is right, these men are on their trial, and their plea is 
“Not guilty;” and, by the privilege of the Court, they are 
allowed to testify in their own behalf. 

Let us see, first, whether they are reliable men by their own 
confession. Have they done their duty ? If your Honors please, 
they have, by confession, so neglected it, that if material for the 
purposes of my case here, I would stand boldly before the Court 
and ask your Honors to set aside the whole poll. There is a 
limit where the irregularities of officers must cease. There is a 
limit at which the right of the citizen to redress must begin. 
That was given in Boileau’s case, and well stated. Although 
the return of these officers prima facie is true, yet if I do once 
successfully assail it, that presumption is gone. Let us exa¬ 
mine these men by their own confession. What was their 
conduct? Why they began with a fraud upon the law. 
The policy and intent of that law is that men varying in their 
opinions should have the custody and control of these ballot 
boxes, and conduct the election. Yet this was perverted. 
Before these men began they took oaths, which oaths were 
as binding upon them then as those they have taken here 
at this bar. Let us see how they (implied with them. 
What are the duties which they swear to perform ? I will show 
your Honors seven of them,—the very seven that the law 
intended to give to the citizen as a protection from fraud—and I 
will show that not one of them they pretended to perform. 



36 


What is their first duty ? I crave attention to the election law 
in Purdon, 378. What is their first duty ? To see that men 
not on the assessment list shall be vouched for. This business 
of being known to the officers is unknown to the law of the 
land. Second, that if a man’s name is not on the Assessment 
Book, his name and residence shall be entered on the Assessor’s 
Book—that is the second thing these men swear to do. Third, 
they swear that if his name was on the assessment list, it should 
be marked with a v , when he voted. Fourth, that two cotem- 
poraneous lists of voters should be faithfully kept. Fifth, to 
count truly and to count quickly. Sixth, to publicly announce 
the result—the number of votes that had been so taken; and 
seventh, carefully to preserve the papers; each one of these 
things is made a protection to the citizen against fraud, and each 
one of these they were sworn to perform. Did they faithfully exe¬ 
cute them ? Not one. If such conduct as this, by sworn officers, 
is to suffer them to stand before this Court in the light of disin¬ 
terested witnesses, equal with their fellow man, there is no way 
to detect fraud. We have had but one of the seven gleams of 
light; if they had destroyed that last list of voters, there would 
have been no means of detection left at all. I ask you to bear 
in mind that these sworn officers have so disregarded their duty 
while I call attention to certain parts of their testimony. John 
McFall swears, as did Dubassee, that they wrote down these 
eleven names without any reference to, or connection with, this 
case; they swear to that which is positively incredible. They 
sit down, while this*case is pending, and see how many names 
they can write in a minute, and without reference to this case. 
Can you believe it? But observe the change in the tone of the 
testimony as the case proceeds. Turn to the testimony of 
McFalls, at page 65, and see how the case begins. I think we 


i 


37 




aie indebted to this Court for this shifting of position. Your 
Honor asked a question which startled them a little, whether 
these votes were all taken without looking at the assessment list, 
and that was the first glimmer of light that made the whole cur¬ 
rent of this evidence change. W hen McFalls was first examined, 
time was all important then—the object that was to show that 
1223 votes could be taken in a day. Look at page 65; he says 
“ there were challenges on each side during the day, but there 
was little challenging done altogether. I never saw less done 
at an election than on that day. Challengers were present all 
the time on both sides; I could not tell how many; there were 
sometimes two—three—a dozen or a half dozen. No vote that 
was challenged was received without investigation, unless the 
inspectors knew the persons. "V ouchers were produced in several 
cases, who swore they knew the party.” It had not got to be 
important then to satisfy the Court that vouchers were produced 
in 211 cases certainly, and probably in 600 cases. The whole 
current of his testimony was to satisfy the Court how fast the 
thing was done—how little occasion there was for delay—that 
the votes came rolling in like boys’ marbles. Now go a little 
further. On the 28th of February the Court adjourned. McFalls 
has time for reflection, and then the several vouchers that were 
there in the course of the day, magnify until they get into hun¬ 
dreds. I ask attention to page 79. 

“ All the requirements of law, so far as you knew, were complied with in 
reference to voters ? 

“ Witness .— I don’t understand you. 

“When a man came who was not on either of the assessment lists, lie was 
required to make due proof? 

“ Answer .—Yes, sir. This far, if a man came who was not known to have 
a residence in the ward, he either had a voucher, or the officers of the elec¬ 
tion knew him. 

“ I understand you to say that every man who came up to vote, who was 

3 



38 


not on the original or extra assessment list, was either known to the officers 
or produced a voucher ? 

“Answer. —It was so, to the best of my knowledge. 

“ You know of no instance to the contrary ? 

“ Witness. —No, sir, not that I recollect. 

“If that is so, the last 211, who are not on the assessment list, were either 
known to the officers, or produced vouchers ? 

“ Objected to by Mr. Hirst, but the witness answered that they did.” 

Consider that for a moment—we know that the last 211 were 
not known to the officers, because they have been all asked to 
point them out, and there is not a man among them capable of 
being pointed out. They, all of them, produced vouchers. 
Now, compare that with the first part of that man’s testimony 
in which he saw “ several” vouchers produced in the course of 
the day, and say whether the night’s reflection and your inquiry 
have not changed his opinion. Turn next to McGarey at p. 87, 
and then turn to his testimony at 94, where he says, “ no man that 
I recollect was sworn to vouch for any one.” And there is 
another thing in reference to his testimony—he says that every 
paper was ready and finished when they sent for Mr. Enue on 
Wednesday evening. I beg leave to ask attention to the fact 
that Mr. Enue could have fixed beyond all question what these 
election officers were doing when he went there—it was a point 
in which our learned friends could have confirmed the officers if it 
had been advisable. Look at the testimony of Donnelly, who 
was Judge of this election. What he was to do if a question 
arose on a naturalization paper or a receipt for taxes, is more 
than I can determine ;—he could neither read nor write. I crave 
attention particularly to one thing he said. 

“ Question. —Did you twist tickets in that way ? 

[The witness is shown some tickets.] 

“Answer . —Yes, sir; at the time the papers were so damp, that if I had 
twisted them harder they would have torn; and then I counted them a 


39 


second time over to be sure of them. I twisted them so as not to tear 

What dampened the papers in these boxes ? When he said 
that, it fell with some astonishment upon my ear. What does 
tnat mean ? I hope our learned friends will explain it. Sheriff 
Deal’s cellar or a fresh printing press can dampen them, hut 
W hat floes he mean; he was twisting tickets that had been 
there all day—handled by the citizens, in the month of Octo¬ 
ber ; I never did understand, nor do I yet, what that means, 
but that it means something no man can hesitate to believe. 
There was a feeble effort made at one time to prove that 
Sal way, a brother-in-law of his, voted, (pages 103 and 108,) 
his name is not to be found on the list of voters if he did 
vote. The only name like it has for a Christian name “James,” 
while the brother-in-law was Francis. 

I refer, moreover, to McMullen and the four officers, to show 
that up to the last stage of this case, every man entertained 
the belief that this list of voters was made out cotemporaneously 
. with the other; and not till Wurteim and Hayburn were ex¬ 
amined was it known that one was made first, and the other 
copied afterwards. See what McMullen says at p. 118. 

“ Question.— If Hayburn was writing at this list, who was writing at the 
other ? 

“ Answer.— Hayburn might have handed his list over to Wurteim to see 
whether they could correct the numbers. 

“ Question .— If this is Hayburn’s handwriting, who was keeping the other 
window list ? 

“Answer .— Wurteim might have had it. 

“Question .— If he hadn't it, who had? 

“ Answer .— I don’t know. One or the other must have had it.” 

That conveyed the idea to this Court that these lists were 
going on cotemporaneously. Turn to what he says at another 
time. 


40 


/ 


“Every man that day, who was not upon the Assessor’s list, was vouched 
for before he voted ? 

“ Answer. —¥e either knew him to live in the ward, or he had to get a 
voucher. I was at the window and knew that. 

“Give me the name of any gentleman who was a voucher for any voter 
between 7 and 10 o’clock at night ? 

“ Answer. —I saw Fagan vouch for some ; some time in the evening. 

“ Question .—Can you give the name of any person who vouched between 
204 and 234 ? 

“Answer. —I don’t remember any. 

“Question. —For whom did Fagan vouch ? 

“Answer. —I don’t remember that; nor for how many. It was W. H. 
Fagan. He might have vouched for one or so. I don’t remember more.” 

William H. Fagan was a witness in this after McMullen’s tes¬ 
timony, and could have told whom he vouched for. I have called 

V. 

your attention to these officers successively, and now I come to 
Wurteim; at p. 133, for the first time, did it come out broadly, 
that this paper now before the Court actually was a copy of the 
other window list. It comes very near to my theory in this case, 
that the last 300 were copied from Hayburn’s list after the polls 
were closed. That is true of this list; if Hayburn’s was here, • 
perhaps we should see with more accuracy how these copies were 
made, and see why this so accurately closes just at the bottom 
of the page. In Hayburn’s testimony, p. 163, he boldly tells the 
Court that every man was vouched for who was not on the As¬ 
sessor’s list. Which of these are you to believe? I ask you to 
look back at the seven propositions I put a little while ago, as 
to the duty of these officers; they were on their oaths then, and 
are now—and now they have taken much away and added 
nothing to the faith which the law placed in their official return. 
They have, by the confession of these things mildly called irre¬ 
gularities, rendered confidence in them impossible. They have 
weakened, not strengthened, their position; for oaths confes- 


41 


sedly violated and sworn duties openly disregarded, badly, 
very badly, recommend them to your consideration. 

The next point to be observed is the enormous lapse of time 
till the counting was finished. Tickets could have been printed. 
Damp tickets could have been cut and counted in that time. 
From ten o clock to four in the morning, when they went up 
stairs, what did these five men do? This is a time when most 
men sleep, and it is a time when, if men have not something 
very much to interest them, human nature will give way. They 
were busy all that time—not a man confesses he winked an eye. 
What were they doing ? Counting 449 votes for the Amend¬ 
ment—did that take six hours? Why, you can count votes, if 
you have them at your hand, as quickly as you can take them. 
That was not all they were about—they were busy with the list 
of voters—they were making them agree 5 they were copying 
from Hayburn’s, the lost list, to Wurteim’s, the produced list. 
They justified the rumors of the election day, that Moyamen- 
sing would astonish the community! They were busy, in the 
emphatic language of McFalls, “finishing” the election. Five 
men, with 449 tickets to count between them, and took, even 
with Donnelly’s counting them, one by one, six mortal hours 
to do it! It cannot be. Turn to another thing in connection 
with the conduct of these men. Where are the papers which 
the law requires to be preserved—the papers in which you, and 
I, and every other man has a deep interest? It is in vain to 
tell me they went into that box. I do not know what theory my 
learned friends mean to suggest. The boxes were taken to Aid. 
Fletcher’s—no suspicion rests on him; they were conveyed to 
the Sheriff, and came from him here. These papers are not in 
them. Where are they? Who has a motive to conceal them? 
Have the contestants—those who are desirous, whose only prayer, 


42 


from beginning to end, has been fora comparison of these papers? 
Have they any motive to take them? No! Who has a motive 
to conceal them? If my case is right, the men who would add 
three hundred names to the list of voters, would not scruple to 
destroy them to keep that addition secret. Three of these men do 
not pretend to have seen the papers go in. McFalls was asleep, 
and McGary thinks “whatever was necessary went inDonnelly 
thinks they did. McMullen, Hay burn, and Wurteim are the only 
three that undertake to speak positively to this Court. Who says 
that that box has been opened and papers stolen from it! McMul¬ 
len took home with him the papers to be deposited in the Common 
Pleas, and he sealed them at home; he did not seal them at the 
same time as the others. I call upon your Honors to say, that 
when you trace the conduct of these officers, it is not going too 
far to say that to conceal their crime, the absence of these papers 
was essential for them. We can easily see what this case would 
come to. The Assessor’s list, without a tick, without a name 
written on it—the list of voters, the last three hundred of which 
might have been very different paper from that of the County 
Commissioners. It takes a long time to copy three hundred 
names. But these papers are not here—and the officers are 
bound to have them here. Where is the seventh branch of their 
duty performed? Look back and see if when upon their oaths 
they discharged their duty faithfully; if they did not do it then, 
they cannot be respected when they come into Court to testify. 
I call attention to the position of these officers in another 
point of view. They have repeated here on oath only what 
they had before sworn to. They stand in great present peril , 
and that is to be considered as weighing heavily the credibility 
of witnesses. The stake is a high one that we are playing 
for. What man supports them in their testimony? No one is 


43 


produced to do it, and they are contradicted by 48 voters. How 
did these names get on the list, I repeat? There is no ex¬ 
planation, except that they came in at the window, and as 
they came in, were put in the boxes. These officers have the 
past to preserve, and a terrible future to protect, in their testimony. 
McFalls imprudently aided our search—he designated a man’s 
residence, and we could find him—he designated some half a dozen, 
and they are here before the Court. The more he designated, the 
more we produced. What is left for them? 

Thus stands our case upon this question of fraud, and if it 
falls upon that, it falls forever—the law for contesting elections 
is a cheat—the vote by ballot must be abandoned forever. Bad 
men can make constitutions and laws by fraud. Men will cease 
to have faith in the institutions under which they live. We had 
better turn to English doctrines, which teach that because voting 
by ballot was introduced in Rome A. U. C. 612, and the 
Agrarian law (that most slandered law) followed in 620, that 
that law was a consequence of the vote by ballot. 

I was sorry to receive the rebuke from my learned friend, for 
saying that this case has excited an interest at home and abroad ; 
it is still true , and I do maintain, that if it is to be found that 
these frauds will have no rebuke from the Pennsylvania Judi¬ 
ciary, the vote by ballot had better be abandoned, and all hopes 
for its introduction elsewhere are at an end. My case stands 
upon the question of fraud as thus presented. 

I have two other duties to perform; I mean with reference to 
the fourth and twenty-third specifications. They refer to 
Moyamensing and the District of Penn. They refer to those 
points to be discussed before the Court, with reference to the men 
who swore they voted for Mr. Reed. 

I have already occupied your time to an unseemly length. 


44 


Perhaps you are in some degree to blame for that, from 
the encouragement given to the counsel who opened the case 
to go minutely into the evidence. I have endeavored to dis¬ 
charge that duty to the Court by the careful collation of the 
facts that have been in one month laid before them. I have 
endeavored in the first place to show your Honors distinctly and 
clearly, the nature of the specifications. I have pointed out the 
alternative nature of the two referring to Second Ward, Moya- 
mensing. I have poised my case upon the third specification, 
and I endeavored to maintain it by such reasoning as I could 
present to the Court; divided into four propositions—the time— 
the names of persons on the list of voters proved not to have 
voted—the political history of the spot to which the attention 
. of the Court was directed, and last, to the total absence of that 
evidence which, I humbly submitted, it was the duty of the 
opposite party to produce. I ask you to view these things 
jointly in your judgment. I have then considered the evidence 
on the other side as divided into two classes; first, the general 
evidence presented; and second, the evidence derivable from 
the officers of the election, and I have submitted to the 
Court the views and explanations which I felt it my duty to 
give upon these points. 

I now approach the consideration of the fourth and twenty- 
third specifications. The fourth refers to the fact that more 
ballots were deposited in the Second Ward, Moyamensing, for 
the gentleman claiming the office than were counted for him 
by the officers; the twenty-third is a like specification with 
reference to the Eastern precinct of the District of Penn. I 
propose, as the views I have to express in regard to them 
are the same, to consider them together; they fall within the 
same principle, and are to be governed by the same rules of 


45 


law; and in this respect you may be equally aided in the 
determination of the question. I have prepared, and hand to 
the Court a list of the names of the witnesses who have been 
proved to have voted for Mr. Reed, in Second Ward, Moya¬ 
mensing, and also in the eastern precinct of the District of Penn; 
the principle that is to govern both is the same. The facts are 
first to be determined; and these facts are, that in Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, I have produced 150 men to this Court who have 
sworn they deposited their votes for Mr. Reed, and the official 
return returns but 94 ; the difference in Second Ward, Moya¬ 
mensing, is therefore 56. In the eastern precinct of the District 
of Penn, I have produced 84 men who have proved they depo¬ 
sited their votes for Mr. Reed, the official return of that District 
allows but 26—the difference there is 58. I call your attention 
to the fact of my being able thus to produce these witnesses, in 
connection with the previous portion of my case ; for it will 
show to you that there is in truth in this community no diffi¬ 
culty in procuring the attendance at a Court of Justice of 
the voters of any of our election districts, and it sheds some light 
upon the total absence of any of the last 300, on the list of 
voters in the Second Ward, Moyamensing. In passing from 
that, to what legitimately belongs to the consideration of the 
question, I feel I have a right to say that in these 234 men you 
have seen and recognized respectable citizens, frank, open, and 
candid in their statements, and that there is no reason to believe 
from what you have seen in their appearance, manner, and con¬ 
duct, that there was a design to do more than communicate the 
truth to this Court. They have another mark to which I beg 
to call attention; the mass of them are on the Assessor’s list; 
they are known citizens whose homes are designated to the 
officers of the election, and to our opponents. 


46 


But I understand that in reference to this part of my case 
there is to come, for it has been most portentously heralded 
from my learned brother opposed to me, a constitutional argu¬ 
ment, the force of which I do not yet comprehend. I do not 
understand, by the constitutional provision of Pennsylvania, 
directing the vote by ballot, that it can be pretended that the 
citizen is deprived of the privilege of telling for whom he voted. 
This secresy which it has pleased those who framed our laws to 
establish, may be, perhaps, is wise. I understand our constitution 
and laws to have given to the citizen the privilege of secresy, 
but I do not understand that it is so unlike all other legal privi¬ 
leges as that it cannot be waived. The question presented to 
this Court is not the right of the citizen to tell his vote, but the 
policy of this Court to receive such evidence, and if I correctly 
understand the proposition that is presently to be contended for, 
it is that there exists some high powerful public policy which is 
to prevent this Court from hearing what the citizen is cheer¬ 
fully ready to tell you. This case will rule all future contro¬ 
versies of this sort; you are to decide first that you never will 
receieve such evidence, or second, that you will receive it— 
scurutinize it carefully, and judge of its credibility. It is between 
one of these two positions that you are now called upon to de¬ 
cide. First; that you never will receive it. I shall maintain 
that such ruling is not required by any judicial decision yet 
known; and second, that it is not required by any public policy. 

The case in Locust Ward, to be found in 4 Pennsylvania Law 
Journal, rules no such principle. It decides that inasmuch as 
the constitution has given a man the privilege to vote in secret, 
it does not become a Court of Justice, acting under that Consti¬ 
tution, to compel the secret to be divulged; this was also held 
in the legislature in Senator Bell’s case. But these decisions do 


/ 


47 


not meet the case of a voluntary statement by the citizen. I 
wait with patience to hear of any judicial authority that forbids 
the reception of this evidence. Suffer me to consider whether 
public policy requires this Court to refuse it. I will admit, and 
fully admit, that such testimony is to be most carefully weighed 
and considered. It may be that in a close political contest 
such a principle might be turned to bad ends—it may be 
that wealth or influence or power might induce men to come 
before the Court and falsify in reference to their votes ] but to 
exclude e\idence on such a principle as this, is to exclude it on 
the ground that you doubt the integrity of the witness. But 
the presumption of law is that the witness will speak the truth, 
and you will never suffer any rule of public policy to be based 
upon the presumption that the citizen can testify an untruth 
Let me call your attention to it in another point of view. So 
far as my very limited experience goes, it seems to me that 
the easiest mode of committing a fraud at an election, is by 
abstracting and changing the tickets. If that be true, beware 
of laying down any general rule of public policy which shall de¬ 
prive the citizen of the only mode of proving that to have been 
done. If this rule is to be maintained, it must extend to ones 
and to hundreds of thousands. Suppose one thousand citizens 
were called before this Court, who swear that they deposited 
their vote for a given individual for a given office, and the return 
showed not one solitary ballot—the public policy would equally 
require it then, and the stealing of one thousand tickets by an 
election officer would be protected by this Court of Justice on 
the ground of public policy . Look for a moment at the evidence 
in this very case. There was a time between the closing of the 
polls in Second Ward, Moyamensing, and the time the boxes 
were taken to Alderman Fletcher, when one man alone had 


48 


charge of these ballot-boxes. This rule, on the ground of pub¬ 
lic policy, is to put into his hands the power by simply abstract¬ 
ing the tickets that have been deposited there, to change, to alter, 
to make or unmake any officer or political principle he pleases. 
There can be no rule of public policy that can lead to conse¬ 
quences like these. 

Having said as much as becomes me in the opening, in re¬ 
ference to the suggestion from my friend on the other side, I beg 
to call your attention to the evidence in relation to the Eastern 
precinct of the District of Penn. My evidence closed with 84 
citizens sworn to have deposited their ballots for Mr. Reed, and 
that evidence, in consequence of the direction of the President 
Judge of this Court, stands confirmed. What would have been 
the effect of this rule of public policy, if you had excluded that 
evidence, and how strongly does the examination of the boxes 
show the wisdom of receiving it ? It was sworn by five election 
officers in Penn District, as good men—that is to say very little 
for them—perhaps better men, than those five who had spoken 
from Second Ward, Moyamensing, that that ballot box would 
show twenty-six votes for Mr. Reed. The counting showed 
more than that number. What faith is to be placed in men’s 
midnight memories of counting ballots ? In accordance with the 
suggestion of the Court, the boxes were counted immediately 
after the Court adjourned, in the presence of counsel of both 
parties. Now, either these election officers were grossly mis¬ 
taken,- or some of them wilfully committed fraud, or that ballot 
box has been tampered with; and I do think it was one of the 
most remarkable portions of this case, to see the feeble effort 
that was made to show that the ballot box had been opened 
in the interval. The Sheriff had deposited these boxes in 
a vault, and the boxes became wet there, and they were 


49 


brought into the dry and heated atmosphere of this room; 
the box was damp, and there is a dampness seems to per¬ 
vade both of these detected wards; the tickets were damp 
when Donnelly twisted them, and the boxes were damp when 
the Sheriff produced them before the Court; the wood warps a 
little, but luckily, to prevent all possibility of doubt on that 
subject, it warps in a curve , exhibits no violence, and if my 
learned friends will show that there exists, save one, American 
Mechanic and Inventor, a man who can take a piece of thin 
poplar wood and bend it to a curve, without breaking, I will 
yield to his theory. You cannot take out twenty-six ballots and 
put others in by system; there was wrong counting at first in 
the District of Penn. I will submit to your Honors a little 
practical calculation of how this thing was done. The Demo¬ 
cratic vote for State Senate was 371; the Whig vote was 91. 
Well, sir, we all know that at the last election, if there was a 
subject in which men’s minds were interested, it was the mainte¬ 
nance of the laws and good order in this community; and of all 
the officers, the public attention was directed to the Marshal of 
Police, who was personally to keep the peace, and arrest the 
offender, and the District Attorney, who was to give his influ¬ 
ence and character to convict the criminal. It is not unreason¬ 
able, therefore, to suppose that the same fellow-citizens who felt 
an interest in the individual who was at Harrisburg to legislate 
for our interests, would entertain the like feeling for those who 
were to suppress riot and murder at home. In reference to the 
office of District Attorney, there was a third gentleman who re¬ 
joiced in being what is called an “ independent candidate.” The 
calculation made by the officer of this Court, shows that of the 
Whigs, Mr. Dickerson drew to his fold 15 votes, and of the 
Democrats he gained the affections of 17. Be so kind to take 


50 


from the 371 Democrats who voted for State Senate, the 17 
erring ones, and you leave 354 as the number of Democrats— 
firm, resolute men—who voted for their candidate; if you de¬ 
duct from the 91, the Whig vote for Senator, 15, you will have 
76 true and steadfast men who voted for their candidate for 
District Attorney. Now, you have the true poll by that pro¬ 
cess; for District Attorney, 354 to 76. If there had been this 
peculiar difference of 50 apparent on the returns, it must have 
appeared on the inspection of the tickets. Now let me tell you 
how this thing was done—my theory of it. You will find 
Mr. Kneass counted by the clerk 377 votes—deduct the true 
poll, 354, from that, and there is a difference of 23; Mr. 
Reed’s count by the clerk is 53; deduct that from 76, the true 
poll, and the difference is 23. If that had been an odd number, 
it would have been difficult to account for, but when it is an 
even number, it wants but the exercise of a little careful mani¬ 
pulation to substitute 23 tickets of one man for another. I 
submit this calculation to the Court. I fortify the fact that these 
officers are wrong by the resistless evidence of the boxes them¬ 
selves, and I pass to the consideration of the last question I am 
about to discuss before the Court. 

What action will this Court take, when every vital principle 
of the election law is violated by the officers entrusted to conduct 
the election? What is proved in reference to Second Ward, 
Moyamensing, and what is it your duty to do ? I have called your 
attention to the fact that the great means afforded by law for the 
detection of fraud, were not only neglected, but not attempted to 
be performed. What is the condition of that ballot box of the 
Second Ward, Moyamensing? Why, a man as well could have 
stood outside of the window and pitched tickets in, and call them 
votes, as to suffer the taking of votes from men not authorized to 


51 


vote; the law is distinct and clear. You have an opportunity to 
put your name on the assessment list or extra assessment list, any 
time before ten days of the election; and if you do not do that, 
and you come to the polls, before your vote is received, you must 
produce a voucher, who will swear to your residence within the 
ward for ten days; and till that is done, no one can vote. It is 
conditioned precedent to the reception of the vote—without it, it 
is no vote recognized by law. As well might the tickets be handed 
in by the bushel basket, as to be received from every human 
thing that chooses to walk to the window and thrust his right 
hand in. I know what has fallen from the Bench on this 
subject. I know this Court has paused and hesitated, before you 
would interfere, with the strong arm of the law, to set aside an 
election on the ground of irregularity; but pray consider the 
nature of that irregularity. There may be an omission to keep a 
window list—there may be a carelessness in reference to the papers 
—but when it goes to the title of the voter to vote, then it be¬ 
comes a question of right. Let me turn attention, for a single 
moment, to what I understand to have been the decisions of this 
Court on this subject; there are two to which I have access— 
the Locust ward case, in 4 Pennsylvania Law Journal, p. 341. 
What was the irregularity that induced this Court to set aside 
that election ? That the officers, regardless of the law, had kept 
it open till past ten o’clock first, and second, that after ten, so great 
a number of votes were received as to affect the result. That 
was a pure matter of form—for every impulse of the Court would 
naturally have been to have said, although the voter came a 
little too late, if the voter was an honest one, be it so; yet, you 
held that, in that regard the law of the land should be rigidly 
complied with. How much more important is it that the man 
who comes to vote, who is to make laws and make constitutions, 



52 


should be known to the law, either by assessment or by sponsor ? 
The other case decided by this Court was Boileau’s case. I 
crave leave, as that is not as accessible as the other, to read a 
passage of your opinion, reported in the Public Ledger of the 
19th of May, 1845, to show that you have always maintained 
the doctrine that if the irregularity is of a flagrant character, 
this Court will interfere. [Reads.] Now you have told us 
that if these irregularities are not such as are capable of easy 
understanding and detection, you will protect the citizen in 
regard to them. The argument used in this regard is, “Don’t 
disfranchise the citizen—don’t disfranchise him, because his elec¬ 
tion officer, as in this case, cannot read or write.” Whom do 
you disfranchise? The majority. The minority are always 
willing to be disfranchised—of course, provided the majority are, 
too. The majority of the people of a given district have chosen 
to place men there unfit to do the duty, and I maintain you ren¬ 
der a great service to the community, if you resolutely say you 
will not permit irregularities touching the vital character of an 
election to pass unnoticed: the consequence will be, that men 
capable of conducting it with regularity will be chosen. Of these 
590 names on the list of voters, but not on the assessment list, 
no living man can tell that any one of them was a voter , within 
the meaning of our laws. To suffer this poll to stand, is to 
encourage such things—to set it aside, is to enforce the law of 
the land, and teach the community to obey it. 

I have presented to you the views I felt occasion to express 
to this Court with reference to this case. I have placed before 
you, first, the arithmetic—second, the frauds, and third, the 
general duty of this Court to set aside this poll. I submit, 
I have maintained the proposition that of the voters of the 
County of Philadelphia, Mr. Reed had the majority. I have 




are 


avoided the slightest reference to the individuals who 
the parties here. I owe it to myself to say that it has never 
been believed by any whom I directly or indirectly represent, 
that our highly respected brother, the respondent, knew, or 
thought, or dreamed of the commission of these frauds. I do not 
think that either of the gentlemen contestants before this Court 
would hold the office if he did not believe it to be the free gift 
of the people. The case is now with you, and you are respon¬ 
sible for it. You are to be either with us, or against us. You 
are either to sanction these things and confirm them by the 
weight of your judicial character, or you are to disarm and 
punish thorn. This is, so far as my knowledge and search ex¬ 
tends, the first contested election tried before a judicial tribunal, 
and it is # not too much to say that the 'political morals of your 
country are to a certain extent placed in your keeping. You are 
to educate the people upon these questions. See—I beg, see 
that you train them to honesty—see that you encourage them 
to believe that fraud neither in man or in party, or in nation, can 
further or attain any successful result. I have done my humble 
duty in this cause, animated by no other desire than to serve 
and do justice to a learned brother of my own profession—of that 
profession which, living or dying, I will proclaim to be, save one, 
the noblest occupation of man on earth. I have no other wish 
than that the case should be so decided by this Court, as to add 
honor and character to the bench—to strengthen the affections 
of the people to their form of government, and as far as its 
humble limit goes, to maintain and perpetuate it forever. 





>. 1 \ \ 1 \ 

> '■ \ ^ \ ' 






















" 



























































































SPEECH 


OF 



WILLIAM 


L. HIRST, ESQ., 

IN THE 


MATTER OP THE CONTESTED ELECTION 






OF 

HORN R. KNEASS, ESQ., 


DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE “PENNSYLVANIAN.” 

1851. 













I 


CONTESTED ELECTION CASE. 

Monday, March 24, 1851. 

BEFORE JUDGES KING, CAMPBELL AND KELLEY. 




SPEECH OF WILLIAM L. HIRST, ESQ., 

" THE 


I am sure, may it please th© court, that you 
have been struck with the significant omis¬ 
sion of my friend Mr. Campbell, in his dashing 
and brilliant speech in this case, to state precise¬ 
ly what it was that he asked the Court to do. 
So far as I could gather from his remarks, which 
were in other respects, signal for their methoc 
and clearness, I supposed he asked the Court, 
1st, to strike from the return, the second ward 
Moyamensing, as if it never existed—or to 
strike from the list of votes one-fourth of its en¬ 
tire numbers, and, 2d, to give Mr. Reed more 
votes by some 60 than the officers of the elec¬ 
tion returned in his favor. I also understood him 
to ask the Court to reform the return of the east¬ 
ern precinct of Penn, and to give to Mr. Reed, 
not the number of votes that his witnesses at 
this bar ask for, but the number of votes that 
the recount made the other day, appeared to 
furnish him. Such, so far as 1 can understand 
them, are the demands of the contestants. I 
shall now proceed to lay before the Court cer¬ 
tain views on the subject, asking of the Court 
that they will listen to me with a fair, un¬ 
prejudiced and impartial mind—that 1 am sure 
of. I shall lay open this case with brevity, but 
I think with sufficient force to remove from 
your minds every doubt that may now rest upon 
them—taking for granted, of course, what 
charity and the law gives me without asking 
for it, that we shall not beg the question before 
hand, and consider that some dozen citizens of 
this community are perjured scoundrels; but as¬ 
suming, in advance, that they have one ten- 
thousandth part of the ordinary credibility of 
witnesses, the case can be made as clear as or¬ 
dinary demonstration can make it. There is 


one feature about the course of the contestants 
that I dislike. 1 shall speak of the case as one 
presented by the contestants—I shall deal with 
the party in whose name they appear before the 
Court; but I do not like to hear them come into 
this Court and claim to be the peculiar champi¬ 
ons of the purity of the ballot box—I do not 
like them to come into this Court and ask your 
Honors to cleanse elections of frauds. If such 
had been their desire, they have slept for thir¬ 
teen years amid the grossest provocations 
that ever could invite the patriot to resist 
them. Let the strumpet, after thirteen years of 
prostitution, bring her accusation of rape. We 
will try the cause fairly,but do not let her counsel, 
for the sake of herself, and to take from her cheek 
the last remaining blush of shame, deliver a ho¬ 
mily upon female virtue. I observe by a volume 
placed in my hands, that in 1838, so reckless 
were the frauds of that year, that in three se¬ 
parate wards 300 names were added to the list 
of voters in alphabetical order, from A to Z, and 
300 ballots deposited in each box before the elec¬ 
tion opened. If politicians are sincere in saying 
that their desire i3 that public morals should be 
vindicated, why is it that in >38, they not only 
failed to prosecute, but permitted others to en¬ 
deavor to suppress the proof of frauds ? I find, 
in approaching the merits of this case, two 
joints of evidence—one of which will attract 
my attention in a moment; but before I notice 
;he first of them, 1 beg leave to call the atten- 
tention of the Court to a very excellent report 
made upon the Congressional case lately arising 
in the 4th district, involving one of the precincts, 
some of the witnesses, and many of the parties 
who have been conspicuous in this case. I will 











4 


read a few paragraphs from it; your honors will 
find that one accusation which appeared there 
has re-appeared here in the same identical form, 
and I trust will meet the same fate. (Reads.) 
The first point of evidence that will attract my 
attention is, “Can parties to the record be wit¬ 
nesses in a case V* Must I ask that question in 
Pennsylvania in 1851 ? According to what law 
do we proceed ? The Court may endeavor to 
find some other than the common law by which 
to administer justice in this case, but I am sure 
your honors must fall back at last into the arms 
of the old common law. No where else can 
analogies be found upon which the judgment of 
the court can rely ; there is only one refuge, and 
that is parliamentary authority, and I will show 
your honors that the strictness of parliamentary 
rule is actually greater than that of the common 
law. In Pennsylvania, can a party be a witness 
in a case, call it what you may, unless it be a 
criminal indictment, for the purpose of support¬ 
ing his complaint ? The law is perverse ; the 
more he tries to be a witness, the more he will 
be prevented : whether it is the next friend in a 
libel of divorce, or whether it be the petitioners 
in a suit, they cannot be witnesses. 1 propose 
to prove this. Before I turn to a case on this 
subject, which has arisen and been decided in 
England, under the Grenville act, I desire to 
call attention to one state of things in England, 
before and after that act. In Douglass on Elec¬ 
tions, vol. 1, p. 15, it is said, that these cases 
in Parliament had become mere party questions. 
(Reads.) Now, if your honors please, what was 
the state of things after that act was passed ?— 
The public of England had been enabled by ten 
years experience to know how it operated. 
I will read from 1 vol. Luder, who suc¬ 
ceeded Douglass as reporter of these cases. 
In p. 1 of the Preface he says, that ten years 
practice under the Grenville act,bad demon¬ 
strated the wisdom of it; and that the deci¬ 
sions of the Parliamentary Committee had ac¬ 
quired weight as authority, (reads,) I will also 
read section 38 of the same authority in the In¬ 
troduction, p. 60 (and section 44 at p. 65) reads. 
I will now draw your attention to the case 
of Downton Borough, as to the admissibility of 
witnesses, whether they stand as petitioners 
or are responsible for the costs; it is in 1 Luders 
p. 273. In that case it was ruled that the Earl 
of Radnor, was incompetent to testify as a wit¬ 
ness, although it was conceded that the proof 
in the case excluded the probability that the 
Committee would certify the complaint to be 
frivolous, or subject the petitioners to costs, 
(reads.) I now proceed to ask, what is this 
case ? What is before the Court ? I had sup¬ 
posed it was a complaint containing certain 
specifications, to be tried. I had found, in au¬ 
thority after authority, that this complaint 
must contain specific allegations, from which 
the parties are not allowed to wander. In 1 
Douglass, 47, section 5, the same rule is pre¬ 
scribed in reference to cases enquired into in 
England. Your honor sees in this the foundation 
of the rule which you yourself struck out the other 


day. In the case of Sir Abraham Hume, found 
in contested cases, in a note at p. 105, it is said 
that evidence to show that he was ineligible be¬ 
cause he was the high sheriff of Hereford, was 
inadmissible, the matter not having been alleged 
in the petition, although the petition styled Sir 
Abraham Hume, as the high sheriff of the coun¬ 
ty of Hereford, omitting, however, to aver the 
fact as a ground of complaint, (reads.) In the 
same book p. 25, in the case of Michael Leib, of 
Pennsylvania, it was decided by the Committee 
of Congress that a petition must state the 
ground on which an election is contested, with 
such certainty as to give reasonable notice 
thereof to the sitting member,^and to enable the 
House to judge whether the facts, if true, be 
sufficient to vacate the seat. Your Honor, 
the President of this Court, within a week 
in reference to the motion made by us to re¬ 
count all the boxes of the city and county 
of Philadelphia, said that “the returns of an 
election made by the officers charged by law 
with conducting them, are to be received as 
true, until the contrary is shown. Every fair 
presumption is to be made in their favor.— 
These are fundamental principles applicable to 
all sworn officers. Is it too much to require 
from a party who seeks to assail such returns, a 
precise statement, authenticated by oath of the 
grounds of fact on which he impeaches the do¬ 
ings of hundreds of our public agents as repre¬ 
sented in such returns.” 

“The principles which now regulate the 
Court on the trial of contested elections, were 
first announced in the cases of Aid. Boileau, 
Prothonotary Skerrett and Sheriff Lelar. This 
Court, in these cases declared, that thereafter, 
they would require of all contestants of elec¬ 
tions, that charges impeaching such elections, 
should be precise, accurate and tangible; and 
that vague generalities in such charges, would 
lead to their rejection.” With these prin¬ 
ciples of law, in view, I ask where do we 
find it averred upon the face of this complaint 
that vouchers as to persons whose names were 
not on the assessment list, were not produced ? 
Where do I find it alleged that the inspector did 
not write the names of voters, not assessed, in his 
book ? Where do I find that the votes were not 
counted quickly by the officers ? Where, that the 
result of the election was not publicly announced 
from the windows, and where that the papers 
were not carefully preserved? My friend goes 
too far when he asks the Court here, in the 
teeth of everything that has been ruled, to cull 
from the cross-examination of witnesses, mat¬ 
ter which had not been mentioned before, in 
the complaint; to treat the complaint as if it 
had never been filed—to ask the Court to dis¬ 
franchise a whole district, upon matter that he 
cannot put a finger upon in any part of the pe¬ 
tition. 

It is well settled that the complaint must set 
forth precisely and distinctly the specific points 
of inquiry, and the proofs must be secundum, ah 
leg at a. In the present case, it was not permit¬ 
ted to us to show the mistakes apparent on the 



I face of the returns in 3d ward Northern Liber- 
I ties and 4th ward, Kensington, until a plea was 
put upon the record, averring the facts; although 
all the election returns had been already co*n- 
! sidered in evidence for two other distinct pur¬ 
poses. r 

But the alleged irregularities are either untrue 
i in point of fact, or entirely immaterial as held 
: in other cases. They are said to be seven.— 
1st. That no evidence was required by the offi- 
i cers to show the right of a person to vote whose 
i name was not on the assessment list. This is 
; doubted by only one witness, Werthym, who 
was sick nearly the entire day, and therefore 
was inattentive, but is positively denied upon 
oath by Mr. John McFall, (printed testimony, 

1 nr ?e Z 9 ’} Mr * I)onnell y* (pages 107 and 108,) 

; Mr. McMullen, (pages 116 and 119,) Mr. Hay- 
burn, (page 163,) and Mr. Wm. H. Fagan, (pages 
215 and 216.) 2d and 3d. That the inspector 
i did not write the names of those voters on his 
book or tick off those that voted. These 
i small points may or may not be true; they were 
i feebly investigated, and are like allegations ap¬ 
pearing in the complaint in Skerrett’s case, 
i which was quashed. 6th. That the result of 
the election was not publicly announced at the 
window, is open to the same observation. 4th 
and 7th. That two lists of voters were not kept, 
and that the election papers were not preserved, 
are allegations without and against the evidenec, 
and the 5th, (which was originally in the com 
plaint and stricken out by the Court as imma¬ 
terial,) that the votes were not counted quickly , 
is a matter depending often upon the question 
whether there happens to be, as it is proved there 
was, in 7th ward Spring Garden, as well as in 
the 2d ward. Moyamensing, a cautious, precise, 
and slow officer of election. It is enough, how¬ 
ever, to say that these matters are not in issue 
upon the record. [At this point of the gentle¬ 
man’s argument, the Court adjourned.] 

* TUESDAY MORNING. 

If the court please, thus far I have consider¬ 
ed the question of the competency of parties 
as witnesses, and in making a search for parlia- 

♦ mentary precedents, which I was invited to do 
by the President Judge, I found a case in 
point, which I read yesterday, in which a peer 
of the realm in England, was supposed not to 

1 be above the temptation of pecuniary interest 
and was refused to be heard. I have gone a 
step further if the court please, and shown that 
by authority concurrent and 1 think resistless, 
matters dehors the complaint cannot become the 
k foundation of a decree. True it is that in the 
Locust Ward case, this court did, and in Boi- 
leau’s case, it said it would, reverse an election 
return for gross irregularities, but in both 

• those cases the alleged irregularities were 
spread upon the face of the complaint. Unless 
a charge is spread upon the face of the com¬ 
plaint, it is matter simply interesting and irrele¬ 
vant. Otherwise all the doctrine I have ad¬ 
verted to as to the necessity of setting forth in 


the complaint the precise irregularities and 
frauds complained of is a mockery and a snare. 
We are told to prepare evidence to answer cer¬ 
tain allegations, and upon the hearing, other 
issues are to be presented, not apparent upon 
the face of the complaint. Against such a 
course we have protested, and I may say such a 
course has been disavowed at the bar by the 
counsel; at p. 118, and at p. 184, (reads.) If 
the matters alleged in this case were true, and 
if they were upon the record I might have 
weighed by avoirdupois the irregularities appa¬ 
rent in Boileau’s case and those alleged in this; 
and perhaps no case presented greater irregu¬ 
larities than Boileau’s; an officer of the elec¬ 
tion became so drunk, that he could not perform 
the duties of the office—another person unsworn 
took his place and assumed to perform them, 
and that other person was a candidate for office 
at the very election at which he assumed to 
interfere. 

The Court will observe that in this discus¬ 
sion, I merely state propositions without elab¬ 
orating them. I now proceed to ascertain what 
are the specifications before the court. Of the 
26, first presented, four are relied upon at bar, 
and only four. 1st. As to West Philadelphia. 
2d. The fraudulent addition of 317 names to the 
list of voters. 3d The number of votes credited 
to Mr. Reed in 2d Ward Moyamensing, and 
lastly the same point in reference to the eas¬ 
tern precinct of Penn. The rest are either 
struck out by the court, waived upon the 
argument of the case, or abandoned before it 
commenced; and I must say that the charges 
found upon the face of the complaint which im¬ 
peached at least twelve citizens of the direst of 
frauds stand there abandoned in the most grace¬ 
less manner;they aie not attempted to be proved, 
but are abandoned without that grace which 
certainly the nature of the case requires; and it 
struck me as a matter of peculiar remark that 
my friend Mr. Campbell, while he was com¬ 
plimenting Mr. Enue at this bar, for his frank¬ 
ness and integrity, iu the next breath stated 
that he could prove that he was guilty of fraud 
that would convert him into a criminal; and that 
he did not prove it merely on the ground of ex¬ 
pediency. In reference to West Philadelphia, 

I mean to submit this case upon the argument of 
my colleague, with a very few observations. 

I say that the truth or falsity of that specifica¬ 
tion can only be ascertained by an examination 
of all the election returns of every district in 
the city and county of Philadelphia. That line 
of examination we attempted, but were foiled 
by the disappearance of the returns of at least 
three of the districts from the office. Second, 

I say that that return can only be contradicted 
by clear and unmistakeable evidence of the con¬ 
tents of the returns upon which it is based, and 
until we have the general return before us of 
West Philadelphia it is utterly impossible for 
us to know at what amount that poll was set 
down in the general return. Third, 1 deny the 
legal capacity of any witness to impeach it by 
oral testimony as to its contents, without the 











6 


production of the paper upon which it is based, 
or satisfactory evidence of its disappearance. 

I now come to consider the proposition of fact 
alleged on the other side, that 153 votes were 
cast for Mr. Reed in 2d ward Moyamensing, 
and only 94 were returned. If this charge 
stood by itself,,it would scarcely admit of a dis¬ 
pute. At no one time was the box in which 
the tickets were deposited, out of the sight of 
the legal guardians of it; if it had been, even 
for a single interval of five minutes, then there 
could have been raised an argument that during 
that interval, it might have been tampered with; 
but the boxes were never out of the sight of the 
officers ; noone had access to the room in which 
they were but Mr. Enue, who came after the 
counting had finished of the particular officer in 
question, and did not even approach the table, 
and was there in the presence of all the officers. 
The tickets were carefully and cautiously count¬ 
ed and re-counted over and over again, and it is 
a singular ground of objection that the delay oc¬ 
casioned by this caution should be evidence 
affecting the officers who exercised it. With a 
poll one-third larger than 7th ward Spring Gar¬ 
den, they were only some five or six hours more 
in doing the business that the law required of 
them. The legal evidence contemplated by our 
law upon this subject, has been given. It is a part 
of our great system of Elections that the Court 
shall call before them the officers of the election 
for the purpose of removing doubts upon this or 
any other subject, and we have with us all the 
cogent and strong presumptions of the law. It 
is presumed in the first place, that the return is 
true; and now what have we upon the other 
side ? A list is handed up to the Court, without 
analysis or any remark upon its details, headed 
c< list of voters, 150 in number, for W. B. Reed.” 
Now, I trust that your honors are too much of 
judicial epicures to gulp down this rare morsel 
without some mastication in order to its proper 
digestion. If you will take that list in your 
hands, I will supply the omission of my learned 
friend, and I will give your honors not only an 
analysis of it, but some very striking remarks 
upon its details. It is not 150 in number but 
151,37 on the first page, 46 on the next, 47 on 
the third, and 21 upon the fourth. At the bot¬ 
tom of page 4 you will find eight names; the first 
is James Kerr ; if you will turn to the 3d page, 
about the middle, you will find the same name, 
referring to the same page of testimony. I ask 
your honors to strike that out. Next you find 
James Mennis,and on the first page you will find 
the same name referring to the same page of 
testimony ; please to strike that out. This is a 
kind of tautology which is contrary to good taste. 
You will next findF. A. White, page 51—that is 
an error in type; it should be page 11, for page 51 
contains the remarks of Judge King; at the topof 
the third page the second name you will find F. 1 
A. White there, p. 11—please to strike that out. 
If you look at p. 4, you will find together the 
names of Edward Wood and Matthew Thomp¬ 
son; p. 2 and 9; the 9 is a misprint; it should be 
7; they were not examined at all as to the person 


for whom they voted, but only as to the time 
they voted. Please to strike out these two 
names. Then there are the names of John Mc¬ 
Grath and Jos. Sellers, as to whom we have pro¬ 
duced evidence sufficient, I would say, at least 
to neutralize their testimony. At p. 178 and p. 
61, we have proved, as positively as human testi¬ 
mony can, that they voted for H. R. Kneass. I 
need not say to the Court, that to set aside, to im¬ 
peach, or even to bring into doubt, the returns 
of the election, the evidence must be of a most 
clear, uncontradicted and irresistible character. 
Next, there are nine names which I would ask 
you to subtract from this total, as persons who 
did not examine their tickets. They are Mr. 
Yogi, &c. [Reads and gives the names of 
nine others, with their testimony.] 1 do not 
wonder that my friend, Mr. Campbell, handed 
up this list in a lump, without remark. I have 
an observation to make in reference to Beth and 
Kerr. They both live in the same house, at 
240 Carpenter street. If your Honors will 
recur to the fact that 240 Carpenter st. is in an¬ 
other ward, I think it will satisfactorily account 
for these voters, and show why Kerr's name is 
not on the list of voters. Then there is Thos. 
Henderson, p. 29, (reads) Wm. Harkness, 25, 
(reads.) Jas. W. Riley, p. 49. In that case 
the printed notes contain a mistake, which, 
however, is explained by the context. I have my 
note of the testimony, in which he said he did 
not examine his ticket; this makes his testi¬ 
mony concurrent; otherwise it w'ould appear ri¬ 
diculous. 1 will refer your Honors to the names 
and pages, for the purpose of future verification, 
and it will liberate me from much of the tedi¬ 
um of this process of detail. We have got the 
vote down from 151 to 136. There are soma 
whom I class as very doubtful, indeed—as to 
whom the impression left upon the mind is not 
distinct. I refer to Mr. Shermer and Mr. 
Thomas. Before 1 turn to that name, I will 
trouble the Court to turn to John Murray, p. 11, 
as the only other man in reference to whom the 
printed notes are wrong. He said, “ On my 
way down, I took a casual glance at it; I can't 
say what names l saw upon it.” That, is omit¬ 
ted on the printed notes; that will reduce the 
number to 135. I come now to the names 
of Shermer and John Thomas. The next is 
Mr. McGranigan at page 37. The Court 
will recollect that he, who could neither 
read nor write, got two tickets—one from a well 
known partizan on each side. He said he 
mixed them. After he had mixed them, he 
was in the position of the Irish waiter in 
the play, who happened to mix two letters; and l 
need not say, he made a gross mistake. Next 
is John Hassan, p 10, and Caslan, p 30, (reads.) 
We have now reduced this list, may it please 
the court, to 129, which was the undisputed 
1 Whig vote for, Senate and State officers, in se¬ 
cond ward, Moyamensing; if we deduct from that, 
30 scratched tickets, as appears by the report 
of the examiners made the other day, it leaves 
99; the recount gives Mr. Reed 98; 1 therefore 
am in fault one vote, and where I shall find that 





7 


A* 

IIS 

1st 

Jr, j 

Ir, I 

of J 

iOt 

d 

ve j 

od f 


v 


( 


leaves me somewhat in doubt. I don’t know 
whether to say that Robert Gillis might have 
given it, of whom it is proved that he could not 
tell his right hand from his left, or whether it 
was given by J. C. Montgomery, who, as it is 
proved, called a meeting immediately preceding 
the election, and there, like the linger post upon 
the road, instructed others to go the way, which 
I am asked to believe he never went himself. 
Perhaps I may find this deficiency in the evi¬ 
dence of James Kerr, at p. 22, who said he 
examined his ticket “ pretty much.” We have 
now reduced it to 99. What accounts for 
those scratched tickets ? What accounts for the 
fact that in that district 30 Whigs deserted their 
standard? My colleague whispers to me that it is 
due to the eloquence of Mr. Montgomery at that 
very meeting which drew them from their faith. 
Out of these 129, but 82 say they examined their 
tickets three have said they looked at it; a very 
indistinct expression indeed. There cannot be a 
more valuable commentary upon testimony of this 
sort, than to take itup and examine it; large num¬ 
bers say at first that they voted for Mr. Reed, and 
t hen they say they did not examine their ticket. 

1 doubt if this species of testimony is anything 
more than evidence of the intention of the voter, 
and not of the fact. His honor, the President 
Judge, put a question to the witness which 
showed the instinct of the judicial mind—“who 
did you intend to vote for ?”—and one witness 
answered that honestly, which was all he could do 
unless he examined his ticket closely. Who 
can tell who he voted for at the last election, 
unless he recollects distinctly that he read every 
one ol his tickets and voted every one he read. 
Allow me to state a circumstance, communi¬ 
cated to me by my valued friend, Mr. Gregory. 
At an election in Southwark he (a Whig) re¬ 
ceived a majority of 8 or 16,—it was the year 
the Democratic ticket received 600 majority in 
that district. It was a startling result, and ap¬ 
peared to strike the minds of men as much as 
the result in Penn district. Upon subsequent 
examination it was found that the electioneerers 
of the party were notin favor of Heintzelman, 
his competitor, but were in favor of Gregory; 
and if I can show that the electioneerers of Mr. 
Reed’s party were not in his favor, were not 
earnestly,zealously in his favor, my case is made 
out precisely the same as was Mr. Gregory’s. 
What do we find to be the case? Mr. Campbell 
has convinced your honors that over 2,100 
Whigs would not vote for Mr. Reed, and did not 
vote for him; that all the allurements and induce¬ 
ments, to say nothing of the harness of party, 
could not drag them into his support; and yet I 
suppose that if a contest had arisen upon the re¬ 
turn in Southwark, the same cry would have 
been raised as has been raised here. What 
was the state of things at the last election ? 
Your Honors have it in figures; — which are 
undeniable, they are undenied. 

Having now shown the Court with what 
ease, and how completely we can overthrow 
the proposition of fact laid down upon the 
other side, that 151 persons voted tickets con¬ 


taining the name of Mr. Reed, I now take up 
a question which seems to invite some atten¬ 
tion at this moment, whether such testimony 
is admissible at all. I have shown your Ho¬ 
nors sufficient, I think, to satisfy you that it 
ought not to be admitted; that if it is, there 
are no means to guard against the evils that 
may flow from it; that no protection to the 
public exists, but that every election return 
m the city and county of Philadelphia, is 
hereafter to be subjected to the chances of an 
examination before a court. 1 say in reference 
to this question, that the true construction of 
the constitution is that it means voting by ballot 
and not canvassing viva voce in court. I say 
in the next place that no evidence is fairly ad¬ 
missible, which does not afford to the other 
party an equal opportunity of meeting it—that 
is to say, it we find that in a certain ward Mr. 
Reed received by the return 300 votes, and but 

150 voted for him, we could not call them and 
compel :hem to answer. It is not the privilege 
of an elector to vote an open ticket. The act 
of AssemMy, section 71, says, “the tickets must 
be folded” and no others shall be received by 
the inspector; the law fixes a heavy penalty 
on an officer of an election, for prying into its 
contents, however willing the voters might 
be. What have we been doing here but prying 
into the tickets of those who voted. The act 
of voting is a secret and solitary act of the 
citizen, which cannot be denied or disproved 
and is a frightful temptation to perjury. This 
case has arisen in England. I refer to 1 Luder 
384, where one William Bennet was offered to 
prove for whom he voted. The witness was 
rejected as incompetent on the ground of inte¬ 
rest. This authority presents a clear view of 
the human heart, and it supposes that interests 
exist there, higher, deeper and stronger than mo¬ 
ney. If in a certain district, where 300 votes 
were cast, if 200 come forward and swear they 
voted for A., theyjfiolate the privilege of the 
other 100 who are Thereby proved to have voted 
for B. Your honors have already seen one of 
the fruits of this investigation. I find in the 
newspapers that scarcely was the ink on the late 
returns in Penn District dry, before parties came 

here in the hottest haste to contest another 
election. 

J- 13 Alabama, p. 105, State vs. the Judge of 
the 9th Judicial Circuit and People vs. Tis- 
dall, 1 Douglass, 59, the court held that such 
evidence as your honors received here, amounts 
to nothing more than evidence of intention and 
not of the fact What did your honor say 
in Locust Ward case? (4 L. I.) y ou decided 
that the election must be set aside, because 
the poll was kept open later than 10 o’clock. An 
application was made to allow the voters who 
voted after 10 o’clock, to be called to answer 
for whom they cast their votes. The court said 
we will not permit witnesses to be called to 
answer questions which the court will not allow 
to be put to them. I say that the question is 
improper—indecent. 

Having shown that the testimony on this 
















8 


issue is insufficient when sifted and analyzed; 
that it is inadmissible—dangerous, I now pass 
to another specification. The 4th specification 
alleges that 243 names were fraudulently added 
to the list of voters at that election by the offi¬ 
cers. My friend Mr. Campbell, and myself, are 
here at issue upon the origin of this allegation. 
If your honors will look at schedule A, attached 
to the complaint filed in this case, at p 7, you 
will find that from the name of Gillis, at the 
head of it, down to that of Hemphill, at nearly 
the foot of that page; but three of these names 
appear in the specification filed. From No. 906 
down to No. 1000, instead of there being 94 
names in the specification filed, you will find 
that only about 25 or 30 appear on that list.— 
The origin of this complaint, 1 think can be 
found in a totally different direction from that 
given by Mr. Campbell; the court will certainly 
recollect two things that occurred immediately 
before and after the last election—to the first, 
Mr. Vinyard fell a victim; to the last a return 
clerk of the district of Southwark, and your 
honors know, that by this court it was held, 
that in both of these instances there was proba¬ 
ble and strong evidence of fraud. It was 
necessary, therefore, to get up a counter-cry 
—then what was the allegation presented to 
the court? That 317 names were added 
to the list? Not a word of it—that 243 
names only were added to that list. So far 
as silence gives tacit consent, 70 of the names 
now alleged to have been fraudulently added, 
were admitted to have been voters by the com 
plaint as filed. The allegation laid before this 
court, the evidence I will sift directly, is that 
317 names were added to the list of voters by 
the officers—that 317 tickets corresponding to 
that number were prepared, and that 4 at least 
out of the 5 ballot boxes received the pre¬ 
cise number of false tickets necessary to the 
exigency of the fraud in contemplation. Can 
the mind conceive a more ^upendous plan of 
operation, requiring the knowledge and the 
criminal assent of every officer of that election? 
Therefore it was that Mr. Campbell, under du¬ 
ress of the case, was compelled to assert that 
every one of these officers was guilty of this 
fraud. Let us think of the time and preparation 
necessary to consummate such a fraud—317 
names have to be suggested, then they have to be 
added one by one to the list of voters, and after 
that each one of the ballot boxes is to receive 
this number of votes. I do not know where, in 
the annals of crime, there can be found a 
conspiracy that required so much prepara¬ 
tion—so much sedate calculation and man¬ 
agement, as the fraud imputed in this case by 
the other side. I need not add, that never was 
such a charge pretended on such evidence as is 
no\,v presented to the Court. This crime has 
been called next to murder—worse than trea¬ 
son—equal to homicide by poison. Admitting 
that such an offence it would be, it is incredible 
without the strongest and most iiresistible testi¬ 
mony. Let us now take the other side of the 
picture. Is there no other poison than that 


which acts upon the life of man? What is the 
moral distinction between the sedate prepara- 
ion of poison against the life or the character of 
a man ? What poison is more subtle than an 
accusation of this sort which involves, as is 
avowed, the peril, and if it passes under the 
favorable judgment of this court, the infamy, of 
twelve of our fellow citizens ? Twelve of our 
fellow citizens must be sacrificed before Mr. 
Reed can obtain this office. I can scarcely 
envy the feelings of the human heart that could 
enjoy it upon such a foundation. The appetite 
for office ha3 been said to be insatiate, but only 
in a civilized sense. When it proceeds to de¬ 
vour human beings by the dozen, it becomes so 
in an uncivilized sense. I gather from this pic¬ 
ture of this alleged great political conspiracy 
one consoling principle of law—that in propor¬ 
tion to the enormity of the crime must be the 
strength, consistency, and irresistibility of the 
proof. When we come to consider such a 
crime as this it seems almost as if our hearts 
were changed, as if our natures were altered. 
We are examining the accusation with all the 
attendant spirits of malice, detraction and hate, 
without one solitary thought for our fellow 
man. From such unfit companions of the human 
heart as these, 1 ask your Honors to come with 
me into the open and sunny paths of the 
case, where, under the influences of charity 
and benevolence, we can discuss it under 
the rule, older than the common law, and 
nearer the Divine —the Golden Rule. Consider¬ 
ing this case under that, we will have no 
difficulty in arriving at a conclusion. What 
is the evidence to make out this accusation ? 
Did any anyone see it done;—this fraud that re¬ 
quired time, preparation, caution, mind of the 
highest order, quick and daring hands—did any¬ 
body see it done, or hear of its being done? Is 
there a particle of evidence showing the parti¬ 
cipation of any of the officers in it? Is there, 
in short, the slightest direct evidence of it? 
Crimes here admitted to be equivalent to the 
highest in the criminal calender, are imputed to 
the officers without one particle of direct 
testimony. It rests simply upon witnesses 
who, by giving the hours at which they 
voted, raise, as is alleged, the irresistible in¬ 
ference that names on the list, after a 
certain number, must have been inserted 
by the officers; so that it comes to the point 
of fact, whether the hour stated by these wit¬ 
nesses is accurate or not. That destroyed— 
that put in doubt—there is an end to the whole 
theory. We have, upon this subject, Wm. 
Landon, who tells us that at twenty minutes of 
ten, he gave his vote; that vote appears to be 
recorded at 878. How he is supported—how 
contradicted—will appear presently. In char¬ 
ity to that witness, 1 can scarcely suppose that 
he could actually have been in his usual state of 
recollection when he left the poll. One would 
suppose that in that condition he would see dou¬ 
ble the number of people around the polls; but 
that don’t always follow. I have read that on 
one occasion, Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas entered 




9 


the House of Commons after a pleasant dinner, 
in a state perhaps not more fit for observation 
than was Mr. Landon on the present occasion* 
1 he House immediately adjourned, but some of 
the reporters were determined not to lose a good 
joke. Accordingly, the next day caricatures 
w ere out, and at the foot of one of them was the 
following very brief conversation between the 
parties: Dundas said, “Why, Pitt, 1 cannot 
see the Speaker.” Says Pitt, “Why Harry, I 

s . e f M y friend Mr * Landon heard double, 

li he did’nt see double; for as he entered his house 
he says he heard two clocks strike. I will prove 
that Mr. Landon is utterly mistaken. He was sup- 
ported, but very weakly indeed by two or three 
witnesses. In consequence of this very light and 
slender assistance ofi’ered to Landon we have 
John Donald called. Talk, as my friend Mr. 
Campbell did, about Dick Turpin’s alibi’s; I 
don’t think there is anything in the annals oi 
criminal jurisprudence which exactly comes up 
to that; he is called to prove time (read.) What 
a fortunate circumstance it was, that just at that 
moment; 2i minutes of ten—just as Landon 
voted, somebody should look at his watch. It 
was supposed at one time that two clocks were 
enough to assist his testimony, but now we 
have a watch thrown in. Who carried that 
watch; why not call him into court ? Donald 
did not give his name. There never was a 
lamer attempt to support a witness. But let 
us see what Landon says. He said the place 
was deserted when he voted—he waited some 
time and nobody voted; then he went home: 22 
witnesses say he is mistaken, and two of them 
fix the time in such a manner that you could 
not fail to see why they are positive about 
it. Murphy and Coughlin had to answer 
roll call at half past nine, and they told the 
precise condition of the polls at the time 
Landon said they were deserted. You can¬ 
not take a part of his testimony as true, 
without the whole of it. At that very time 
there were hundreds around the polls—a string 
of voters across the street, and everything con¬ 
nected with a hot and excitable election night. 
John E. Ringland, &c., (gives the names) and 
the six officers of the election, making 22 wit¬ 
nesses establish this and utterly demolish Mr. 
Landon. In addition to these 22 witnesses, 
there are half as many more on our side and on 
the other side, who sustain the entire current of 
their testimony. At page 97 is James Breeson, 
who voted at 8 o’clock, and he stands eight after 
Landon on the list of votes. William Pass at 
887, voted at 8 o’clock; John Ferry, 879, (page 
108) voted between seven and eight, as he says, 
at the last election in 2d ward Moyamensing. 
Hiram Lyons voted at the edge of dark, No. 774, 
page 226. Dubassee, who gave him the ticket 
and saw him put it in, says that he voted at 
6 o’clock, (page 178.) These make 27 wit¬ 
nesses who contradict Landon. I now pro¬ 
pose to show you from the testimony of the 
other side that the statement made by Landon is 
incredible and impossible, and that it is opposed 
by many more witnesses. Joshua Fletcher vo¬ 


ted at 9 o’clock in the morning, No. 36. John 
Landon, p. 20, says that he came upon the ground 
between 8 and 9 ; he left—was gone 20 minutes, 
and returned, No. 97. Jacob Spicer, p. 26, at 
10 minutes before 12, No. 318. Patrick Mc- 
Granigan, p. 37, voted between 12 and 1, No. 
443. Hugh Callaghan voted about 1, p. 49, No. 
589. Tomlinson, p. 24, voted about 1,No. 570. 
The officers of the election, all of them, voted 
between one and two, p. 145, No, 556 to 560. 
B. M. Shain about 2 o’clock, p. 2, No. 483. 
Same page, Charles J. Shain, No. 681, and Ed¬ 
ward Wood, No. 716, say they voted between 
six and seven, and quarter of seven. I ask if it 
is possible, if about 700 votes were polled at 7 
o’clock, with such voting as your honors have 
had proved to you, that only 168 votes more 
were polled three hours after from seven to 
nearly ten. Matthew Thompson, No. 739, says 
he voted at 7^. Robert Cameron, p. 23, says 
he voted about 8; his number is 810, and yet 
our friends would have you believe that from 8 
o’clock till near 10, there were but 68 votes 
polled. How incredible—how near to farcical 
—how contrary to all the evidence in the case! 
But we go further. About 2 o’clock we have 
in the neighborhood of 500 votes polled, by the 
positive oath of their witness, Mr. Shain. 
Will my friend say that from 2 o’clock to 20 
minutes before 10 at night, there were but 370 
votes polled ? Can it be possible ; are we to be 
detained arguing this question on testimony 
of one witness, one watch and two clocks, when 
we have the testimony of 30 or 40 witnesses, 
all inconsistent with him? But may it please the 
Court, where is the evidence that has been 
withheld on the other side? We have had it 
stated to you by witness after witness, that their 
challengers were on that ground from early in 
the morning till late at night; where are they? 
Where is the window-book they kept? Where 
are those witnesses that attended from hour to 
hour, and knew the number of votes polled 
during the day and evening ? Why is not 
one of them produced? not one of them is heard 
here in contradiction to the unprecedented mass 
of testimony all tending to the same result? 
They could have shown whether there was one 
spark of reality in the inference sought to be 
drawn from the testimony of Landon. This is 
a thing which is irresistible—overruling; the 
absence of testimony like this is conclusive. 
Why not produce them; why are they not about 
the Court; are they unwilling, or would they, if 
called, have felt conscientiously compelled to 
tell that they electioneered tickets against Mr. 
Reed, and not for him. Why are they not pro¬ 
duced as to this heart — this marrow of the 
case, when it is known that the testimony of Lan- 
den required assistance; when the opposite side 
has confessed that necessity by calling Donald at 
the close of this case to fortify the testimony 
of that witness who had been so direly impeached? 
These men know who voted last; they could have 
said: we saw, between nine and ten, such and 
such a man vote. Where are they all? Not 
here. You might as well call spirits from the 












10 


deep, as to call meil to prove these facts. Their 
absence is as significant and pregnant as the 
omission to call any witness on any question 
of fact. I pass this circumstance, which 
is adduced by means of Landyr, to show 
that 317 names were voluntarily auded by the 
officers to the list of voters. I was about to say 
I would go to the next circumstance. May it 
please the Court, there is no next circumstance 
in the case to support this proposition of fact. 
If 20 or 30 or more names are found on that list, 
and persons answering to corresponding names 
are produced at this bar, it amounts to nothing 
—it is merely building an inference on an infer¬ 
ence, which is illogical. The fact that A. B. 
did not vote at that poll, is said to warrant the 
inference that no other person of that name 
voted; and our friends would draw from this in¬ 
ference, a second inference, that the name 
was fraudulently added to the list of voters. 
There is another inference more rational and ne¬ 
cessary: that another individual might have 
said he owned that name. Our friends have had 
some experience on this point, and they should 
have presented the case somewhat better. They 
tried it once at Washington, and in re-presenting 
it to this Court, it ought to have been pre¬ 
sented with more accuracy. I will read a few 
lines from p. 13 of the report of the committee 
of Congress in Mr. Robins’ case, which I have 
already quoted. It seems that it was alleged in 
that case, that 167 names were added by the 
officers to the list of voters, and that tickets to 
that amount were placed in the boxes; they 
supported it by the electioneered, challengers, 
and window books, which are not produced in 
this case, (reads.) “In order to render this tes¬ 
timony effective, tivo things are necessary; first, 
that the witness be correct as to the time when 
these persons removed from the district; and se¬ 
condly, that no other yereons of the same name 
resided there.” “The witness fails to identify 
those who, according to his statement, had re¬ 
moved from the district, with those whose votes 
were received and whose names are recorded by the 
officers of the election.” The Court perceives that 
this reasoning, which is sound and rational, 
proceeds upon the ground that you must 
be satisfied that no other persons of the same 
name lived in the District. It cannot be that 
because 28 or any other number of persons say 
they did not vote, that you are bound to infer 
that nobody else of the same name lived in the 
District. If your Honors will take up that 
assessment list of the 2d ward for 1851 we will 
see how insecure is this test of fraud. If your 
Honor, the President, will look up p. 368, you 
will find your own name there, though as a 
laborer. Your Honor, Judge Campbell, will 
find your name at p. 83 and 385, on two occa¬ 
sions. Your Honor, Judge Kelley, will find 
your name at 183 and 256, and Wm. B. Reed, 
is also there at p. 287. Next comes the name 
of our highly respected fellow citizens, Robert 
Patterson, &c. he. he. I read a week ago that 
Miles M. Carpenter had dropped dead in the 
street, but I found afterwards that it was not the 
gentleman with whom we are acquainted. 


This idea of gathering up names, odd or not 
is insecure, but to take names that are verj 
common, is paying too little respect to the judg- 
ment of this court. Thirty-nine names appea]! 
on this list, schedule A; I mean to analyze this | 
as I did the other—both were handed to tht 
court without a remark; it is headed : “persons 
on the list of voters after 906, who are prover 
not to have voted;” It is one of the most signifi 
cant events of this case, that a gentleman st 
noted for method as Mr. Campbell is, shoulc 
have handed these statements up to the Cour' 
in this way, without the ordinary discussior 
which papers passing through his hands meei 
with. In the first place, there are sia;that oughi 
never to have been here at all—whose cases ar< 
not worthy the consideration of the Court, foi ’ 
various reasons apparent on the faee of the evi 
dence; the first is John Duffy, 91; he says he 
did not vote, but four of that name are on the as 
sessment list; No. 985, Caleb Wisener; it is nol 
Caleb on the list of votes, it is Cale; next ie 
Allen Miller, on the list of votes 1015, and oui 
friends bring Allen B. Miller of the city, tc 
prove that he did’nt vote. Next is Henry Bar¬ 
ton, who lives in another ward, and he sayf 
he did’nt vote in second ward, Moyamen- 
sing; who says he did? Why not call intc 
court Mr. William Bradford, w’ho is sitting al 
the bar, and examine him. Why not cali 
your honor the President whose name w r as 
used in the argument of this case? There is C 
A. Mason who never lived in the ward, am 
said he did not vote in the ward! Who said ht 
did? Next is Samuel McGowan; is that a pecu 
liar name ? He lived in Southwark. Who said 
that he voted in 2d ward Moyamensing? W« 
now come to another class of cases—names nol 
at all peculiar, Jas. Agnew, Felix Bradley, 
Wm. Taylor, Sr., and Jr., John Robbins, &c. 
Here are names 14 in number not at all pecu¬ 
liar, as to whom I suppose there are not only 
duplicates but triplicates he. on to the end ol 
the chapter. There is another class of persons 
as to whom we have given testimony, Alexander 
Gillis. The court will observe that in this list 
we don’t often find the first names Correct. 
There are two sons of Mr. Gillis; Alexander 
and Anglis. Auglis is not produced, although 
he promised to vote on the day before the elec¬ 
tion. Next is John Winters, whose oath is met 
by the equally positive allegation of J. G. Ring 4 
land, who saw him on the ground and has known' 
him for ten years. Here is positive oath against 
positive oath, and therefore I presume the fact 
becomes doubtful at least. The next is Harre, 
who is proved as long back as 18 years ago to 
have been a man who could not recollect what 
he did, five minutes afterwards. We now 
come to another class, as to whom the proof 
leaves the issue uncertain. Edward Virtue had 
a son of that name. There is J. M. Van- 
derslice. Moses Vanderslice is called to 
prove that he did not vote. Next is Mosee 
Lipman. M. J. Lipman is called to prove 
that he did not vote. Frederick Offerman—he 
w T a3 not so well known to his family as most 
men, owing to some difficulty; and the evidence 







11 


cot) 

very 

udg. 

'pear 

this 

the 


;oi 


4\ 


its 


y,to 




M to him is very uncertain. Next is Anthony 
tlton. Our friends ask you to believe that the 
Anthony Elton who died 13 years ago, is the 

one on the list of voters. Three witnesses_ 

two of theirs, (Mr. Ashman, page 7 , and Mr. 
Lafourcade, page 18,) and one of ours, (Mr. 
v\ ands, page 233)—tell of another Anthony El- 
ton in the ward, and one of them shows that 
that fact is known to one of the petitioners. I 
do not mean to impute a want of integrity to 
those who swore to the facts of the petition; for 
it you look at it, most of these names are not 
there. We come down, then, to nine names. 
Ihere is one Michael Lobb, as to whom there 
has been no evidence at all; the name is volun- 
* Placed here for amusement. This reduces 

the list of 39, to 8 names. It is said that most of 
these persons were well-known men; if so, they 
were better known to persons of their party 
than to ours; where were your challengers at 
that window? If these votes came in as Mr. 
Campbell said—as boys throw snow-balls— 
through th~ window, where were your window 
sentinels? Some of them had heavy interests 
at stake; where were they all, not to prevent 
5 “‘ votes coming in too freely? I was much 
struck with the inconsistency of my friend, who, 
on a complaint and argument which go to 
show that votes were never received at all, 
argued that they were received with the rapidi- 
i! ty of snow balls thrown by children. I now 
come to consider the result. There are eight 
persons left of peculiar names, and only eight— 
what is to become of them? How do your 
honors know that these persons did not vote? 
saiii How does the Court know that these persons at 
'■ ycur honors’ bar, were the persons whose names 




ider 


ret 


!• 


they bear? 1 recollect an anecdote of John 
Randolph. Two gentlemen met him on the 
avenue at Washington—one said “ Mr. Ran¬ 
dolph, how do you do? Let me introduce you 
to my friend Mr. Smith.” “ This is Mr. Smith, 
is it?” “Yes, sir.” “Well, who are you ?” 
said Mr. Randolph. Who are these men ? do 
we know them? They came up and passed in 
panoramic view before the Court, and disap¬ 
peared. Suppose it should hereafter turn out 
that some of these men came with names that 


did not belong to them? Could that be a rea¬ 


son to impute to the Court a knowledge of false 


t - a -— 

personation by these men? Would not your 
honor say to me, why Mr. Hirst, where were 
; you ? but to impute that the Conrt had any thing 


to do with it, seems to be the last extent of 
human ingenuity. If the Court will believe 
that because these eight men have peculiar 
names, that there were no others of those 
names who voted in Second ward Moyamensing, 
even then the question becomes immaterial, be¬ 
cause the expurgation from the poll of eight 
names, does not affect the question one way or 
the other. I need not trouble the court with 
reference to the second page of this memoran¬ 
dum, to which I have been adverting. Aid. 
Campbell said (reads,) such testimony as that 
is of such a character that it needs no comment. 
May it please the Court, the evidence upon 


which you are asked to believe that this fraud 
was committed by a voluntary participation of 
all the officers of the election^ is 'entirely cir- 
cumstantial; and what have we on the other 
side? We have the direct, positive, and con¬ 
current testimony of all the officers of the 
election, against the vague and overthrown 
testimony of,Landen, and against the illogical 
inferences sought to be derived from the 
evidence in regard to certain names which 
appear upon the list. It has been said that 
the sep?tration of witnesses is attended with 
its advantages and its disadvantages to the 
party at whose instance they are separated. 
These witnesses at the instance of our friends 
upon the other side, did not hear each what the 
other said. They came into the court house 
prepared to expect—and certainly they did re¬ 
ceive the most searching cross-examination that 
I have ever heard—three and four hours a piece 
to each one, without repose—without pause — 
without time to gather their memory —there was 
a constant, rapid and thorough cross-exami¬ 
nation of each one of them. They came 
here and confronted the best intellect at our bar 
—equal perhaps to any in the world—these 
plain, unlettered men did that, and they stood it. 
Nothing but truth could do it. 1 appeal to the 
argument of my friend, when I say that that 
cross-examination amounted to nought. I do 
not mean to read the testimony of these wit¬ 
nesses—that would be too laborious. I heard 
your Honor say that you would peruse every 
line of this testimony, but I cannot deny my¬ 
self the pleasure of reading a few lines uttered 
by Donnelly, who left an impression which I 
think has not been exceeded in the annals of 
testimony. That plain man, with this array 
against him, stood before this court, and made 
not only such an impression upon your Honors, 
but upon the counsel, that Mr. Campbell said, 

on two occasions, he believed what he said._ 

Upon the argument, it was found necessary to 
denounce all these officers, but the testimony of 
this man made an impression which I am sure 
is yet uneffaced. (Reads p. 98.) 

“/There came in two votes from 6 o’clock til 
10 for one at any other hour of the day. As 
the tickets were polled by the voters, they were 
placed in the boxes. Every ticket that came 
in through the window went into the boxes, and 
particular care was taken. If l had seen any 
rascality between either of the parties, I would 
have left the room immediately, for 1 was bound 
to do justice. 1 didn’t know either of the men 
on the day of the election, neitherMr. Reed or 
Mr. Kneass. If I had met them in the street I 
would not have known either of them. I saw 
nothing but justice.” 

This is the statement of a man as to whom, 
until the concluding argument, there, I believe, 

existed no impression or suspicion of guilt._ 

When it was found necessary to implicate all the 
officers, for without it the fraud could not have 
been committed, then the charge was made. 

A simple matter of very little account has 
been stated by my friend, to wit: that of the 
















12 


last 300 numbers, none voted on the Constitu¬ 
tion. It was stated on our side that these tick¬ 
ets became scarce towards night. If you look 
on the list from 710 to 743, there are but 13; 
from 754 to 800 but 10; from 847 to 893 only 4; 
from 844 to 944 only 2; and from 944 out, none. 

1 do not see how any fact that has been reierred 
to in this case will mark out the general course 
of votes better than that very fact stated by my 
friend on the other side. As to another little 
fact, that there are duplications on the list of 
votes—they are of names most common, as 
Wm. Keyser, John Murray, &c. 

When you are asked to note deficiencies in 
the carrying out of the amendment to the Con¬ 
stitution, and other checks, I hope your Honors 
have not forgotten what took place at the open¬ 
ing of the boxes in 6th Ward, Kensington at this 
table : the tally lists called for 683 votes; the 
list of voters stopped at 620; while the blanks, 
headed State and County Officers, &c., were not 
filled at all. 

In conclusion upon this point, it is asked 
why not call more witnesses? Mr. Campbell 
has suggested the answer “ let well enough 
alone.” When I find a theory of fraud is built 
upon certain alleged facts, I best perform the 
functions of a prudent lawyer when I direct my 
evidence to demolish them. But may it please 
the Court, we have done more. It is admitted 
that one known citizen of that ward would des¬ 
troy the whole of their theory. That we know; 
we know that any credible witness will pul¬ 
verise it; that it is of such a shackling, card- 
house character, that any one human witness 
can destroy it. What have we heard upon 
the question, whether these votes were received 
at the window ? We have called the six wit¬ 
nesses who received them—that is direct irre¬ 
sistible testimony on the subject—the highest 
evidence known to the law—the evidence con¬ 
templated by the law—credible witnesses not 
impeached. 1 forgot—my friend Mr. Camp¬ 
bell supposed that the atmosphere of that ward 
is poisonous—that it is pollution to live there— 
that riot and arson have so impaired and im. 
peached it, that it is sufficient to raise that cry 
in court to demolish any witness who happens 
to reside there. J his argument is a two edged 
sword. I did not suppose that this case was to 
be tried at this bar upon prejudice; but if it be 
true, as it was alleged, that riot and arson once 
flourished there, we hear another story now. 
We hear now the agreeable and favorable news 
of a happy change. We hear of the restoration 
of order there. We do not how’ever, hear that 
under the new regulation of matters, the chief 
of police has had occasion to put his foot within 
the precincts of that ward. And to whom 
then is this happy change owing? The peace 
of that District has been in the charge of 
Lieut. Megary, a witness in this case, and 
if the district has been heretofore disgraced, let 
it be hereafter remembered, to his honor , that 
order has been restored. Does the Court doubt 
that Daniel Yertine voted? See Me Fall s’evi¬ 
dence, p. 70: McGarry’s, p. 84; Donnelly’s, p. 


99; McMullin’s, p. 113. Does any body doubt 
that he voted ? If he did, then the theory of 
the other side is pulverised—there is an end of 
it. Why should we doubt all these witnesses? 
Has any one impeached them? Are all the rules 
which govern courts to be lost sight of, to grati¬ 
fy the foulest suspicions of the darkest hearts? 
Who is suspected? Peter Donnelly? No. Mr. 
McFall? No Megary? No. Wertheym—Mr. 
McMullin—is he suspected? It is conceded that 
this fraud could not have been committed except 
with the knowledge and guilty assent of all.— 
Is he the one? I have inquired as to that wit¬ 
ness. I sought information from one of the 
most amiable and excellent of my friends, 
who is now enjoying a reward, entirely an 
insufficient one, for his honorable services in 
Mexico. I refer to Dr. Bunting. The charac¬ 
ter I heard of that Sergeant, any citizen 
might be proud of. Always active in his 
duty—obedient to his officers—daring, chival¬ 
rous, the first upon the forlorn hope, last upon 
the retreat—that man was Sergeant Wm. Mc¬ 
Mullin. I heard my friend, on a recent occa¬ 
sion, say that a good soldier is always a good 
citizen : Wm. McMullin was a good soldier, and 
if the authority I have just quoted is of any va¬ 
lue, he is a good citizen. Is George Mooney 
perjured? Are all the officers perjured? Good 
heavens! It seems to me that we are moving 
about among the darkest of the chained spirits 
spoken of by Milton. Are all perjured, and 
Wm. Landon alone credible? There are not 
two Mullegrews, as has been argued; for 
the tailor of ’44, in New York, might very 
well be the weaver of ’50, in Philadelphia. The 
residence given by both is in the same neigh¬ 
borhood; the one spoke certainly, and the other 
as he thought. Did he vote? If he did, there is 
an end of the case. George Girl, who was 
horn in the ward, and has lived there ever since, 
swears he voted about nine o’clock—his num¬ 
ber is 1066. Why does my friend tell me that 
he is the George Gurrell who voted at No. 700, 
when his own witness, Robert Cameron, swears 
that he (Cameron) voted (No. 810,) at eight 
o’clock? As to Mayland’s vote, of all the inex¬ 
cusable attempts ever made in a Court of Jus¬ 
tice, that with reference to the Coroner’s view, 
was, in my judgment, the least defensible. 
There was, at the foot of it, the name of a highly 
respectable lady, as a subscribing witness, with 
her residence. The man who voted was known 
to have driven an oyster cart. Why was not 
that lady examined? Why was it left to us to 
examine her, and to demolish utterly the identi¬ 
ty of the person? Why was it thought profita¬ 
ble to poison the public ear with the allegation 
that Jacob Mayland, testified to by Wertheym, 
had been the subject of a Coroner’s view months 
before? Did Lalley vote; the brother-in- 
law of Donnelly says he voted late at night. It 
is written down James McLalley—the only 
named in that list that resembles it—his num¬ 
ber is 1150. Did George Mooney vote? He 
voted, he says, about eight. There is George 
Manly at 963, which is the only name resem- 





13 


hling it. For the Rev. H. E. Montgomery they 
have written M. Gorneway, and they frequent¬ 
ly made such mistakes. Did George .Brown 
vote? (1216.) Turn to the evidence of Mc- 
Fall, p. 79, John P. McSorley, p. 63, who saw 
him there late in the evening; John Dubacee 
p. 65, Wm. McMulhn, 114. Did Lee Bunker 
vote? See McGarrey, p. 83. This number is 
1123. Did Wm. Bradford vote? No. 1194. See 
John McFalls, p. 70. Did James Menins vote? 
They cannot find him they say: he voted for 
Mr. Reed. (p. 42 reads.) The testimony of 
that gentleman brings his vote, 1 should say, in 
the night; the only name at all corresponding to 
his is James Mench, at 1137. 

We have it from Mr. Campbell, that the lej>al 
and just presumption of law is that if a voter’s 
name is on the Assessment list and list of vo¬ 
ters, that he voted. It was not for me to call 
witnesses who were on the Assessment List— 
it was for the other side—they have undertaken 
to do that—your Honors see with what success. 
I now propose to lay before the Court the names 
of those on the Assessment List, or so similar 
that, according to the ordinary rules applicable 
to the case, they are the same. [Reads. 

1 now offer the list of such voters of whom there 

are near 100 names, each one of which,I aver un¬ 
der the decision of this court, and the admission 
of my friend, is a witness in the cause. 

i now, may it please the Court, approach the 
last point of the case, which will occupy but a 
few moments in the consideration of it; I refer 
to the District of Penn; a point of the case, once 
unnecessary to discuss, but now from a direc¬ 
tion made by the Court, perhaps the turning 
point of the case. There were in reference to 
that precinct, voters called before the Court to 
the number of 84 ; three of whom, if the record 
of the election speaks truly, did not vote at all; 
the last three on the second page. We find that 
there were but 21 of these who examined their 
tickets, and could speak with certainty that 
they voted for Mr. Reed. We called witness 
after witness, who satisfied the Court, and cer¬ 
tainly must have gone far to satisfy the counsel 
themselves, that in reference to that ward there 
could not be a particle of doubt. The officers 
stood here, and carried conviction with their 
statements. Mr. Bardier, it seems, was select¬ 
ed by both parties to see that fair play should be 
i done. Until the boxes were opened and laid on 
the table, they were never out of his sight; the 
smallness of Mr. Reed’s pile attracts his atten¬ 
tion, and the count corresponded, he says, with 
their appearance on the pile. An inspector and 
clerk sat on one side, another inspector and 
clerk on the other, and the judge sat at the head 
of the table. The counting was finished, tallied, 
and the tickets put in the box, and the box seal¬ 
ed up. That box then goes into the custody of 
the law—the question is, what were the contents 
of that box at that, and not at any other time. 
If anything can be established by human tes¬ 
timony, it is that in both the contested districts, 
when the officers deposited their boxes in the 
custody of the law there was a list of voters and 


assessors’ list in them. Is it pretended for one 
moment—can there be suggested by the most 
ingenious, any motive under Heaven, that could 
have induced the officers of Moyamensing to 
secrete the list of voters that ought to go into 
the box, while they sent a duplicate to the pub¬ 
lic office of the county for universal inspection? 
is there a motive that could induce persons to 
keep from a sealed box which they never could 
suppose would be opened, a list of voters and 
yet put one in a public office? Aid. Fletcher’s 
house was a place at which Whigs and Demo- 
crots visited during the time they were in the 
3d story closet on the floor. I know that if it 
could be traced home to these officers, that they 
withheld or suppressed that evidence, the court 
would in odium spoliatoris presume everything 
against them, as tney will against the other side; 
if it can be supposed that any interested to 
the injury of these officers had taken it out of 
the box. With regard to Penn it is the same. My 
friend Mr. Campbell has given us some arith¬ 
metic on the subject of Penn. His calculation 
assumes that 23 votes were taken by some dex¬ 
terous hand from one pile and that the same 
hand put the like number of other votes upon 
another pile; but there are some difficulties in 
its way. It assumes first, that every Democrat 
or Whig who voted the State ticket, voted a 
county ticket of the same political complexion. 
There were some peculiarities as to the county 
ticket which might account for its being voted 
entire. Who were on i! ? Mr. Reed, who it 
it confessed ran below his ticket. There was 
Mr. Carpenter, comparatively a neighbor of 
that district—entitled to strong claims of sym¬ 
pathy, and on the other side Mr. Vinyard, who 
had been most lamentably, and I believe, 
innocently, connected with one item in 
the long arrear of election frauds; the other 
candidate on the whig ticket was Mr. Shetzline, 
a stranger to them. I take it for granted that a 
person who wished to vote against Mr. Reed 
and Mr. Vinyard might deposit the whole county 
ticket. After gulping down the second supposi¬ 
tion, that some dexterous thief stole twenty 
three tickets on one side, and supplied them 
on the other; 3d, it is assumed that after this 
theft, then all the officers set themselves to 
work to cheat Mr. Reed out of 27 more votes, 
and only to count 26 for him, there being 53 in 
the box, and 26 returned. To what straits are 
counsel compelled to resort in thus charging the 
officers with conspiracy, theft, and perjury for 
the purpose of carrying into effect a theory 
which will induct a particular candidate into 
office. After my friend has done all this, with¬ 
out evidence and in the teeth of the evidence, 
his calculation makes it necessary that eight of 
his own witnesses have been perjured or mista¬ 
ken, and after all, the whole fabric falls to the 
ground, because he has forgotten to take into 
account the two blank votes found in the box. 

I am sorry to destroy such fanciful arithmetic, 
but it falls even upon the basis of the counsel 
who constructed it. 

Now, I came to the recount. Do you believe 












14 


that it was truly made by Messrs. Williams, 
Mann and Horn ? They did not swear it was 
true, but 1 w@uld take it and believe it withou 
their swearing to it. Your honors believe 
that they counted true—then why not believe 
that the five officers ot the election counted 
true? Where is the difference if they are 
credible '■fitnesses, and not perjured scoun¬ 
drels. If we do not begin by begging the ques¬ 
tion, but assume that they are credible, and that 
I have a right to assume, why would you prefer 
a count made the other day upon the words of 
those who made it, and decline to accept a 
count made five months before, upon the words 
of those who made it. The question turns upon 
the relative value of a count made on the night 
of the election before the boxes had gone from 
the sight of their legal guardians—before they 
could have been interfered with; and a count 
made five months atterwards uuder the circum¬ 
stances which surround this re count. Com¬ 
mon sense—ordinary good judgment seem to 
indicate the count which should be preferred. 

But again, as to the count in the 2d ward, 
Moyamensing—the ballot box of that ward 
substantially corroborates the officers, and to 
that extent contradicts the testimony on the 
other side. In Penn the ballot box contradicts 
everybody—all the officers—all the witnesses— 
it stands by itself and without a particle of cor¬ 
roboration. Your Honor has said in reference 
to our application to enlarge the area of the re¬ 
count ordered by the court. “The long period 
which must necessarily intervene between the 
holding of a general election, and the arrival of 
the time for contesting its results, would afford 
a terrible opportunity to deal with the thousands 
of ballot boxes scattered over the whole 
State. 5 ’ Let it be understood that a recount 
can determine the result of an election, and 
your Honors will be saved all trouble in 
the decision of these cases; for as each ap¬ 
proaches its conclusion, the examination of the 
boxes will render all the evidence immaterial. 
Your honor when you penned that opinion paint¬ 
ed the state of society—you knew that if men 
were even capable of issuing forged naturaliza¬ 
tion papers—if men could falsify the return of 
Southwark, you knew that men might be found 
capable of tampering with the ballot boxes; 
and is it possible with that observation for our 
guide, that I am called upon to ask the Court to 
weigh the value of a count made in October 
and a recount in March ? If such evidence were 
admitted to determine a cause, your honors’ la¬ 
bors would be entirely superseded. I need not 
argue whether this box of the precinct of Penn, 
hai been bursted open—I need not argue whe¬ 
ther the curves are natural—whether it was 
opened by natural or manual means—for in 
either case the box would be in a condition that 
any one could do what he pleased with the 
contents. Mr. Williams states that when the 
recount was made, the box was not sealed. If 
from the time these boxes were first opened in 
Court, the other day, to take out the papers, 
till counted, they were not sealed up then, 


there is an end of the case. It is perhaps 
rathei a reproach to ourselves, that while 
we had our eyes continually fixed on the box of 
Second ward, Moyamensing, so great was our 
confidence in Penn, that we paid no attention 
to it at all. The box was open to anybody 
who chose to open that commonest of all 
common locks, as Mr. Williams says it is— 
there it was, the plaything of anybody who 
chose to deal with it by day or by night. To ask 
you to attach faith to the contents of this box, 
now, when it was counted months ago, accord¬ 
ing to law, by trustworthy hands, seems to me 
to be the last extent to which the counsel have 
thought proper to go with this case. Is there 
any of your Honors who would feel safe in dis¬ 
charging the high trust committed to your 
hands, by adopting the contents of that box as 
it now stands; a box that might have been dealt 
with, and if there is a witness in this case who 
speaks the truth on either side, has been dealt 
with; and upon that stake the result of this case? 
It seems to me that no more dangerous, no more 
fatal doctrine could be preached; it is one point 
I trust your Honors will never subscribe to. 
Officers could be made, and would be made by 
foul play; elections need not take place; the 
rights of the people would be jeopardized; every 
thing would depend upon the security of the 
ballot boxes after the election was finished.— 
How much better is it for those who administer 
the high functions of the law, as you do, to have 
for those who administer its lesser duties, as 
these officers did, that common sympathy which 
ought to exist in reference to all co-ordinate, 
though subordinate branches, and to say, we 
will prefer the officers of the election who are 
elected by the people and recognized by them. 
It is the safest doctrine; it is the true doctrine; 
it is the legal doctrine. It is the best public 
protection to take the returns of the officers as 
to the results, backed by their oaths, to take the 
presumptions of law aided by their parole evi¬ 
dence; to sum these up together, and rely and 
stand upon them: that is the safe position; no 
other is safe, legal, or proper. 

I have concluded what I have to say upon the 
meiits of this subject; I have endeavored during 
the whole of this case, to do and to say nothing 
unkind or unpleasant to any one. 1 ask your 
Honors to regard with due solicitude, the feel¬ 
ings, character, and condition, of those of our 
fellow citizens, who are sought to be perilled 
and destroyed by the result of this case, lask 
you to take that course, which according to the 
weight of the evidence and the conclusions, and 
the presumptions,of law, is pointed out, and this 
is the course and the only one that can win the 
prize of public applause, which my learned 
friend undertook to offer to the Court. 

It seems to me that the recent changes in our 
law, that have enlarged the circle of elective 
office, is tending to vex and disturb the peaceful 
brotherhood of our bar. It is unpleasant to find 
ourselves in this new state of things. If the 
friendships with which the bench have honored 
the bar for so many years are to be chilled and 







I 


15 


cancelled; if we are to become political partizans 
by the influence of the political tempest, let us, 
at all events, inulcate good feeliDg—let us make 


the experiment, whether good nature may not, 
like “moonlight upon the troubled sea, brighten 
the storm it cannot calm.” 


% 






\ 


> 













9 




t 


/ 












t 












































































K 








. 
























\ 


' 




* 


* 



















V 


































' 


' 

' 








■ 






































*■ 



















IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF 
SAMUEL WALLINGTON, ET AL: COM¬ 
PLAINING OF THE UNDUE ELECTION OF 
HORN R. KNEASS TO THE OFFICE OF 
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY 
OF PHILADELPHIA. 

, Horn R. Ivneass being duly affirmed according to law, doth upon 
his solemn affirmation hereby declare and say, that this application 
for a special allowance of a writ of Certiorari in the above case is not 
for the purpose ol delay, but he is advised by his Counsel and he verily 
believes that it is necessary and proper that the case should be re¬ 
moved to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
for their decision on the law and facts of the case—that the evidence 
which has been taken in the Court below has been reduced to writing 
and will come up with the record if the said writ is allowed—that 
many grave and important questions of law, under the Constitution and 
the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania arise in the case, 
which are of such great public interest and concern that they ought 
to be settled and adjudicated by the Supreme Court of this State ;— 
that the Court below has rejected evidence which this affirmant is ad¬ 
vised by his counsel and verily believes is material and admissable 
and ought to have been admitted, and the said Court has admitted evi¬ 
dence which this affirmant is advised by his counsel and verily be¬ 
lieves is incompetent and illegal, and ought to have been rejected. 

And this affirmant further states, that there being no bill of excep¬ 
tions provided by law in the case, he is without remedy in the pre¬ 
mises, except by an allowance of the writ prayed for, at the present 
stage of the proceedings. 

And this affirmant further saith that by the general returns of the 
city and county of Philadelphia he was declared duly elected District 
Attorney of the county of Philadelphia, in October last, and was du¬ 
ly qualified on the first Monday of November last, and then entered 
upon and hath since then continued to exercise the duties of the said 
office. 

And this affirmant specifies and sets forth certain questions of law, 
under the Constitution and laws of this commonwealth, arising in this 
case hereinbefore referred to. 

1. Whether it is not incompetent and contrary to public policy, and 
in violation of the Constitution to permit a party to call qualified 
voters to disclose their votes with a view to prove a candidate 
elected by such testimony. 








2 


2. Whether it is competent to permit the parties to the record to be¬ 
come witnesses in the cause to swear through their complaint. 

3. Whether it is competent to reject the tally lists and returns of the 
election, offered for the purpose of showing errors in addition palpa¬ 
ble on their face. 

4. Whether it is competent to refuse to open all the ballot boxes and 
scrutinize their contents. 

5. Whether it is competent to reject testimony to prove that one of 
the ward officers of an election impeached for fraud was appointed 
at the instance of the complaining candidate, and received pecunia¬ 
ry reward to be his friend inside the poll, thereby in point of law, 
constituting such officer his agent and representative at the poll, 
and whether it is not competent to prove that said officer being a 
witness received money from said candidate, after the institution of 
the proceedings. 

6. Whether it is competent to amend a defective complaint after it is 
filed and found to be unfit to found an inquiry upon. 

HORN R. KNEASS. 

Affirmed and subscribed this 15th } 
day of March, A. D. 1851, 5 

J. SIMON COHEN, Pro. 


The subscribers, counsel of Horn R. Kneass, Esquire, do hereby 
certify that in their opinion the case ought to be removed into the Su¬ 
preme Court. 

ROBERT TYLER, 

WM. L. HIRST, 1 
JOHN M. READ. 

Philadelphia, March 15, 1851. 


Consolidated Act of July 2nd , 1839, Sec. CLIII. 

The several Courts of Quarter Sessions shall have jurisdiction to 
hear and determine all cases in which the election of any County or 
Township Officer, by the citizens in the respective County, may be 
contested. 

Under the above act the Court may decide that “ either of the can¬ 
didates has the greater number of legal votes and ought to be admitted 
to the office, and that such candidate shall thereupon be entitled to such 
office,” or “ that such election or return is invalid, and a new election 
shalltake place.— Purdon's Dig. p. 389. Street vs. Commonwealth , 
6 W. $ S. 209. 

Act of 13<A April , 1840. Title , “ Quo Warranto.”—Pur don's 

Dig. p. 991. 

Sec. 13. In all questions arising on writs of quo warranto between 



3 


persons claiming to be duly elected to fill any office, it shall be lawful 
for the Court trying the same, to decide both on the legality of the elec- 
tion of the party claiming said office, as also of the party in possession 
of the same, and if judgment of ouster is given against the party in 
possession, said Court may decree that the office shall be held by the 
person or persons who they shall be of opinion is duly elected, and 
after judgment of ouster, when it cannot be ascertained who is duly 
elected, said Court may order a new election to fill said office, to be 
held at such times thereafter as shall be appointed by such Court. 

Act of 2nd July 1839 referingexclusively to the election of Prothono- 
taries, Clerks, Recorders and Registers, Purdon’s Dig: 407. {under 
this act Carpenter's case was ruled.) 

Sec : 5. “ The returns of the election, under this act shall be sub¬ 
ject to the inquiry, determination and judgment of the Court of 
Common Pleas of the proper county, upon complaint in writing, of 
thirty or more of the qualified electors of the proper county, of undue 
election or return of any such officer, two of whom shall take and 
subscribe an oath or affirmation, that the facts set forth in such com¬ 
plaint are true to the best of their knowledge and belief; and the 
said Court shall, in judging concerning such election, proceed upon 
the merits thereof, and shall determine, finally, concerning the same, 
according to the laws of this Commonwealth ; and the prothonotary 
of the said Court shall immediately certify to the Governor, the de¬ 
cree of the said Court on such election, and in whose favor such con¬ 
tested election shall be terminated and the governor shall then issue 
the commission to such person in whose favor such contested election 
has determined; and the said Court shall hear and determine such 
contested election at the next term after the election shall have been 
held, and such complaint shall not be valid or regarded by the Court 
unless the same shall have been filed in the prothonotary’s office within 
ten days after the election; and in case such complaint is filed within 
the time above mentioned, it shall be the duty of the prothonotary to 
transmit by mail, immediately, to the governor, a certified copy thereof, 
and in such case, no commission shall be issued, until the Court shall 
have determined and adjudged on such complaint, as aforesaid.” 

Act of 16th June , 1836, relative to the jurisdiction and powers of 

the Courts. — Purdon's Dig. 249. 

Sec. 1. “The Supreme Court of this Commonwealth shall have 
power to hear and determine all and all manner of pleas, plaints and 
causes which shall be “ brought ” or “ removed ” there from any other 
Court of this Commonwealth, by virtue of any writ or process issued 
by the said Court, or any judge thereof for that purpose, in the manner 
now practised and allowed, to examine and correct all and all manner 
of error of the justices, magistrates and Courts of this Commonwealth, 
in the process, proceedings, judgments and decrees, as well in crimi¬ 
nal as in civil pleas or proceedings, and thereupon to reverse, modify 
or affirm such judgments and decrees or proceedings, as the law doth 







4 


or shall direct, and generally, to minister justice to all persons, in all 
matters whatsoever, as full and amply to all intents and purposes, as 
the said Court has heretofore had power to do under the constitution 
and laws of this Commonwealth.” 

Act of 1122. — I. Smith , p. 140. Extracts from Sec. XIII. 

“And that the said judges, or any two of them, shall have full 
power to hold the said Court, and therein to hear and determine all 
causes, matters and things, cognizable in the said Court, and also to 
hear and determine all and all manner of pleas, plaints and causes 
which shall be removed or brought there from the respective General 
Quarter Sessions of the Peace and Courts of Common Pleas, to be 
held for the respective Counties of Philadelphia, Chester and Bucks, 
as also for the City of Philadelphia, or from any other Court of this 
province, by virtue of any of the said writs.” 

“ And generally shall minister justice to all persons, and exercise 
the jurisdictions and powers hereby granted, concerning all and sin¬ 
gular the premises according to law, as fully and amply to all intents 
and purposes whatsoever as the justices of the Court of King’s Bench, 
Common Pleas and Exchequer, at Westminster or any of them, may 
or can do.” 

Extract from Sec. XI of the same Act. 

“ And every of the said justices shall have full power and authority 
by virtue of this act, when and as often as there may be occasion to 
issue forth writs of habeas corpus , certiorari and writs of error and 
all remedial and other writs and process, returnable to the said Court, 
and grantable by the said judges by virtue of their office, in pursuance 
of the powers and authorities hereby given them.” 

Act creating the District Court for the City and County of Phila- 

delpliia. — Pardon's Digest, p. 263. 

Sec. 3. “ No suit shall be removed from the District Court by certi¬ 
orari or habeas corpus, but in all cases the final judgment of the said 
District Court may be examined and affirmed or reversed on a writ 
of error from the Supreme Court in a similar manner, and subject to 
the same limitations and provisions under which writs of error are 
now issued from the Supreme Court to the Court of Common Pleas 
of the City and County of Philadelphia.” 








a 


4 

ARGUMENT. 


This application for an allocatur is addressed to the discretion of 
each one of the learned judges of the Supreme Court. 

1 . The usual ground for an allowance, viz: the importance of the 
legal questions arising in the case, fully appears in the affidavit. 
No case could be presented in which the points involved are of such 
general interest and importance to the citizens of the whole State. 

2 . The power of the Supreme Court to award the writ to an in¬ 
ferior Court, applies to all cases, civil as well as criminal, before or 
after judgment, unless otherwise provided by statute. Act of 1722, 
1 Smith’s L. 139, 140. Act of 1836.— Purdon y 249. 

The present case is substantially an action of quo warranto. 

Act of 1839, Purd. 391. 

Act of 1839, Purd. 389, Sec. 145, 146. 

Act of 1840, Purd. 991, Sec. 13. 

In cases of quo warranto the Acts of Assembly provide that they 
shall proceed according to the course of the common law, and the 
Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction.—Purd. pps. 988, 989, 
990, 991. 

And this case is different from those in which the writ is forbidden 
by statute. 

Act of 1839, Purd. 407, Sect. 5. 

Act of 1836, Purd. 252, “ 16. 

Act of 1839, Purd. 391. 

Act of 1811, creating the District Court. Purd. p. 263, Sect. 3. 

The Act of 1850, providing for the election of District Attornies, 
(p. 654,) provides that the officer elect shall be qualified on the first 
Monday of November next ensuing the election, and that the election 
may be contested according to the Consolidated Act of 1839. Purd. 
p. 391. 

“ A writ of certiorari may be sued out before and in some cases after 
judgment, and lies in civil actions before judgment in the King’s 
Bench or Common Pleas,—in all cases where these Courts have juris¬ 
diction and can administer the same justice to the parties as the Court 
below, and though the cause cannot be determined in the Court above. 











6 


yet the writ may be granted if the inferior Court have no jurisdiction 
over it, or do not proceed therein according to the rules of the common 
law.”— 1st Tidd's Practice , p. 399. 

In all cases of common law jurisdiction, where common law process 
can be applied to give a remedy, a certiorari will remove both civil and 
criminal causes from an inferior Court before judgment, into the King’s 
Bench, which is a Court of general common law jurisdiction.—1$£ 
Tidd's Practice , p. 399. 

A certiorari will lie from the King’s Bench to remove an ejectment 
from the inferior court of the City of Norwich, and such certiorari 
does not remove merely the cause but likewise all the proceedings, so 
that the plaintiff does not lose the benefit of what was done in the 
Court below.—Doe dem, Sadler vs. Dring, 1 Barn. & Cres. 253. 

Per Abbott, C. J. “ I have heard nothing to convince me that the 
writ of certiorari allowed to be proper in other cases, is improper 
here. If the defendants shall not enable the plaintiffs to go on here, 
that may be a ground for a procedendo.” 

Per Bayley, J. The writ of certiorari is most beneficial to the par¬ 
ties. By habeas corpus nothing is removed but the cause, but a cer¬ 
tiorari removes all the proceedings and then the plaintiff does not lose 
the benefit of what was done in the court below.” Rule to quash the 
certiorari discharged. 

“ An ejectment brought in an inferior Court on a lease, executed 
and sealed on the premises, which were within the jurisdiction of that 
Court, may be removed into the King’s Bench by certiorari, if there be 
any ground for believing that it cannot be impartially tried in an in¬ 
ferior Court.” Per Abbott, C. J. “ This is a cause commenced in 
a Court of inferior jurisdiction, and the defendant is entitled to his 
writ of certiorari.” 

“The defendant’s apprehension of not having a fair trial, is suffi¬ 
cient ground for his sueing out a writ of certiorari.” 

Per Halroyd, J. “ The writ of certiorari is a matter of course. It 
is like a re. fa. lo. in replevin, and I cannot see why an ejectment 
should not be removed as well as a replevin, at any rate the defend¬ 
ant’s apprehension is a sufficient ground to justify us is in retaining 
the cause.” 

Rule lo quash certiorari discharged. 

In the above case, the affidavit of the defendant stated that he was 
apprehensive that the cause would not be fairly and impartially tried 
in the inferior court by reason of the deputy town clerk being, as the 
defendant believed, the attorney of the lessors of the plaintiff, and 
having the empanneling of the jury. 

See also 1 Salk. 148, and note. 

Tn the Commonwealth vs. Beaumont, 4 Rawle, p. 366 to 399, 
Gibson, C. J. fully discusses the powers of the Supreme Court, con- 



7 



ferred upon them by the net of 1722, and the constitution of Pennsyl- 
vama, and rules (p. 367,) that the powers of the King’s Bench, are 
broadly granted to the Supreme Court, quoting and sanctioning the 
dictum of Sir Wrn. Blackstone/that “it keeps all inferior jurisdic¬ 
tions within the bounds of their authority, and may either remove their 
proceedings to be determined here, or prohibit their progress below.” 

In the Com’th vs. McCloskey, 2 Rawle, p. 369, Rodgers, J., ruled 
that the superintending jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not ousted 
by the act of incorporation of Moyamensing which constitutes the 
Commissioners the judges of an election and gives them full power 
and authority to approve thereof or to set aside the same and order a 
new election, but that the Supreme Court may inquire into the legality 
of their proceedings insetting aside an election by granting an infor¬ 
mation in the nature of a quo warranto. 

A certiorari lies to the Quarter Sessions in cases of special statutary 
jurisdiction, as in the incorporation of a borough, West Philadelphia, 
5 W. & S. 281. 

A certiorari cannot be taken away by statute by any general, but 
only by express negative words. Rex vs. Reeve. 1 W. Black, 231. 

It is a general rule that the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be 
taken away except by express terms or irresistable implication. Per 
Tilghman, C. J., Overseers vs. Smith, 2 S. and R., 566. 

The writ of certiorari being a beneficial writ for the subject, can¬ 
not be taken away without express words, andbt is much to be lamen¬ 
ted in a variety of cases that it was taken away at all. Per Kenyon, 
C. J., 8. D. and E., 542. 

The case of Com’th v. Nathans, 5. Barr. 124, does not apply; that 
was a proceeding commenced by a wife against her husband ; this 
case in substance and in spirit is a proceeding in the nature of a quo 
warranto, the complaint is like an information, judgment is the same 
and the writ of quo warranto is as old as the common law. 

The Act of 1836, which gave concurrent jurisdiction to the Su¬ 
preme and other Courts, did not provide a new remedy, or a new or 
special jurisdiction, but is a part of a general code, and merely pro¬ 
vide for details of form and proceeding. Gibson, C. J. says, “ where 
indeed a Superior Court has concurrent jurisdiction, it may issue its 
certiorari to remove an action or an indictment, or any other matter 
determinable according to the course of the common law, and proceed 
in the cause returned as the inferior Court would have done.” The 
act of 1839, under which this proceeding is commenced, is a mere 
variation of the remedy by quo warranto, and cannot be distinguished 
from it, and, therefore, the succeeding paragraph of his Honor, the 
Chief Justice, which imports that writs of certiorari in cases not ac¬ 
cording to the course of the common law only go out after judgment, 
has no bearing whatever on this case; it would be at the sacrifice of 
substance to mere form so to apply it. The rule applied with great 


# 










8 


force to a special statutory remedy given to a wife to proceed in the 
Court of Quarter Sessions, by petition, according to the course of the 
Civil Law;—but is utterly inapplicable to the present, which is a 
great public cause, founded upon a complaint in the nature of a Com¬ 
mon Law information, involving the office of one of the chief law of¬ 
ficers of the commonwealth, and is, in all its substantial, and, in most 
of its formal aspects, a case of quo warranto. No one can doubt 
that, in such a ease as this, the King’s Bench would exercise jurisdic¬ 
tion. 

That the law points of this case are of great importance; that they 
should be decided at this time by the Supreme Court of Pa. ;—and that 
the writ is discretionary ; are the essential points of the question, and 
cannot be denied. 

The general power of the Court to award the writ is not ques¬ 
tioned. 

It is attempted to be contended that the present case is an exception 
to the general rule. The objections ah inconvenienti amount to no¬ 
thing, for the Court may appoint an examiner, and hear the case, like 
all Chancery and Orphans’ Court cases, on the proofs. 

If however the evidence comes up with the record (as decided in Doe 
dem. Sadler vs. Dring.)—the case is ready for argument. 

The case cited to show that the evidence does not come up with the 
rest of the record is not in point, that being a certiorari issued after 
judgment. 

Every argument ah inconvenienti is an appeal to the discretion, 
and notan objection to the power, of the Court, to allow the writ. 
The discretion of the Judges of the Supreme Courtis always a check 
upon the excessive use, or the abuse, of the writ,—and limits it to 
cases of great public importance. 

This case being one, in which the grounds laid for the exercise of 
the discretion of the Court, were not questioned in the argument, it 
is submitted, that, if there are doubts on the point of jurisdiction, it 
is due to the case, to the parties, and to the Court, that the writ may 
issue, and that the question of jurisdiction be argued with that prepara¬ 
tion and deliberation which the interest, and importance, of this great 
public cause demand. 


R D -11. 











o 

* 


* 



/ 


\ 



ft 


c» 

* 





ft 

o 





5 



J 


\ 



* ' 

» * 

* 



u 



o 
o 
. a: 

o 

* 



* 

*> 



!> 





O 

ft 



✓ 








A < 0 ^ '‘>-*’* aV 

<j> <s> ^ A c°“° 


_ (•> 

' . • 4 

Ip, 


* ~y . v 

>/> 4 * 

« ^ o 

* 4 0. 

V -Q? ^ •" 

-, * -w-,* «> o % 

^ *•■’• y °* **i«* * U ' 

> V > # AnL/* <^ a 9 » y * 


«* ^ - c + 


* , 


* 4 o» 

•cl' 

^ * 4 r w T ,+ °o 

o. % ^ .s-, ^ 



: W : 

A'** o 

? % * <Sr %. ° 
^0 t * L V> 

■» 


; ‘-*2^ *° ^ . 
A- . \> ^ ^ " V °-°° ^° 0 

* ^ 4,9^ ^ v Sj&OfiL* %> + 'k*x'* * 

v* v • 


<V** 

- A <\ vrvT* «Cr 

,/\c»V % ^ 

N s -AAVt,'*. ^ ' 7 '. 



A V-* ' J 

* XV v". * 

'o- ^ 


•* V V -> ^f/li^^ \ Ay ' rO. • K >J ' ■* ^ ^ 

\ V ' > * * ' 4 V 

A o ,•*■'** 

,N <, ^AsSM]')'^* 'TIa - U ? &U lJ//5b- ■* A V ’T’j. 

* Aq‘ * * o V . ^ O' 



^5 * 

^ ,K cv V 

^ ' ' 1 < V * 

- > V C\ 

4 , 


O M 0 




' \i~ff > 

'A^r <• 

+± -T: 

y » 

i * 


4 

A,*o 

vfc 


srA 


' A G 
0 + 



° 9 G V 

* 4 / o H 

V ' <^ . «* A Cr ' 

<^ v c 0 * a „ <$> 

4 * %■ C' s ^ y ^ , 

^o .° % 




,° \ 

*u «>"' ^°° *■» *"’*’ A 

•* c\ .0 .**•- > V ,»••'* C- 

l\ V,^ 'ie&% V,-^ *‘ 
















O • * 


A 



% -mm,- 

V* G v c> 'o.** A ^ *<**' 

% A % A * , 

0* ^ ♦ J t&ffl'/Tp-? "* O ^ f. 


" ^ rtf 


6 0 " ® * 

<J T> • 

^ 0 <y ' 

'-Him' '^o 
^ * 

% +'F«r~%* *K c* \ 

<s> *•' -V o, * 0 o 

* *«, A v ... '*>- 





*b^ 



:* ^ A * s 


\ **<& • 


o A v/V 
^ * 4 O ^ 0 1 

---A ,V ^ * 

• • * iG o ^ 



» 4 

^ CT 

-? a. 0 ’’*, r 42%fjfijf; 4°*- 

.* O o -%. *;Wf;* 

A, u V • * 1 * <v 

* w * • 'f -* 


v* 4,0’ *I\?- "> 




■ <£°JV °, 

* A? V, o^ 

^ T .* * V *-... 
••A* c° ..-•. A , 
'- ^-t -V5^>. 


lP v\ 



^ LIBRARY BINDING 


1JUN 7 i 


v p°-* V®^ 4^ 

" ° ’ * &\ '*'■’' A> °^ * ® - 0 ° A 0 ^ 

rrje/ . <<r v v a** % c> «<y *«'••- 1 

.a .wwv-. ^ .*♦ y^atei'-. ^ .^va ■ 


^ ST. AUGUSTINE 

■ i— a . 

f,.. A fla. 
































